U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

63–806CC u 1999

HEARING ON: H.R. 2496, TO REAUTHORIZE THE

JUNIOR DUCK STAMP CONSERVATION AND

DESIGN PROGRAM ACT OF 1994 AND H.R.

2821, NORTH AMERICAN WETLAND CONSERVATION COUNCIL EXPANSION ACT, AND H.R.

1775, ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION PARTNERSHIP ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION,

WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SEPTEMBER 23, 1999, WASHINGTON DC

Serial No. 106–63

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

GEORGE MILLER, California

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA MC CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

JAY INSLEE, Washington

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

MARK UDALL, Colorado

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SIMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

ADAM SMITH, Washington

HARRY BURROUGHS, Staff Director

DAVE WHALEY, Legislative Staff

JEAN FLEMMA, Democratic Legislative Staff

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held September 23, 1999 .......................................................................... 1

Statement of Members:

Dingell, Honorable John D., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Michigan .................................................................................................... 6

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8

Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F. H., a Delegate in Congress from the Territory

of American Samoa .......................................................................................3,23,75

Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland ................................................................................................... 20

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2,19,25,74

Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of New

Jersey ............................................................................................................. 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2,53,108

Ortiz, Hon. Solomon, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Texas .............................................................................................................. 6

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8

Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State

of New Jersey, prepared statement of ......................................................... 73

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19

Hon. Carlos A. Romero-Barcelo ́, a Commissioner in Congress from the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico ..................................................................... 23

Statement of Witnesses:

Davis, Michael L., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil

Works, Department of the Army ................................................................. 32

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 34

Davis, Grant, Assistant Secretary, Executive Director, the Bay Institute

of San Francisco ............................................................................................ 119

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 122

Frazer, Gary D., Assistant Director for Ecological Services, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, ..................................................................................... 44

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 99

Hirshfield, Michael, Senior Vice President, Chesapeake Bay Foundation .. 117

Melius, Tom, Assistant Director for External Affairs, Fish and Wildlife

Service, U.S. Department of the Interior .................................................... 11

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13

Ribb, Richard, Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management ......................................................... 60

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 62

Yozell, Sally, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration .................................. 24

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 27

Additional material supplied:

From the Sierra to the Sea, The Ecological History of the San Francisco

Bay-Delta Watershed .................................................................................... 168

Letter to Mr. Saxton, from David R. Anderson, Director of Federal Affairs, Chesapeake Bay Foundation .............................................................. 167

Text of H.R. 1775 .............................................................................................. 134

Text of H.R. 2821 .............................................................................................. 163

Text of H.R. 2496 .............................................................................................. 165

(1)

HEARING ON: H.R. 2496, TO REAUTHORIZE

THE JUNIOR DUCK STAMP CONSERVATION

AND DESIGN PROGRAM ACT OF 1994 H.R.

2821, NORTH AMERICAN WETLAND CONSERVATION COUNCIL EXPANSION ACT, H.R.

1775, ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION

PARTNERSHIP ACT

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION,

WILDLIFE AND OCEANS,

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in Room

1334, Longworth House Office Building, before the Honorable Jim

Saxton, Chair, presiding.

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. SAXTON. The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans will come to order.

Today we are discussing H.R. 2496, the reauthorization of the

Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994;

H.R. 2821, the North American Wetlands Conservation Council Expansion Act; and, H.R. 1775, Estuary habitat Restoration Partnership Act.

The first bill, H.R. 2496, has been introduced by a friend and colleague, Congressman Solomon Ortiz, from Texas. This bill would

reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act. This innovative idea was first enacted in 1994 and it has

allowed thousands of school children, from kindergarten through

high school, to participate in the nationwide wildlife art contest.

This program has also motivated students to take an active role

in learning about and conserving our nation’s wildlife resources.

This measure does not make any significant changes in the underlying Act, but it will extend the annual competition, the marketing

of these stamps, and the awards program for an additional five

years.

The second bill, H.R. 2821, has been recently introduced by two

House members who serve with great distinction on the Migratory

Bird Conservation Commission.

2

This proposal, by our colleagues, Congressmen John Dingell and

Curt Weldon, would increase from three to five the number of nongovernmental representatives that may serve on the North American Wetlands Conservation Council.

This Council has been instrumental in approving hundreds of

worthwhile conservation projects that have saved over 32 million

acres of essential wetlands in Canada, Mexico and the United

States.

Finally, H.R. 1775, to catalyze estuary restoration and coordinate

Federal estuarine activities. This is an excellent bill and this action

is long overdue from the Federal Government. I am the co-sponsor

of the measure and I commend Mr. Gilchrest for his leadership on

this issue.

I remain committed to attacking the problems facing this nation’s estuaries and to restoring downgraded coastal habitat. Over

a decade ago, Congress created the national estuary program to address serious environmental problems in estuaries of national significance. These problems include polluted runoff, habitat loss, development pressure, and harmful algal blooms.

Unfortunately, despite a significant amount of planning, very little effort has been made to implement comprehensive conservation

management plans or to actively restore the most seriously degraded estuarine areas.

I am pleased that today we are taking positive steps to improve

this unacceptable situation.

I would now like to recognize Mr. Faleomavaega for his statement.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE

OF NEW JERSEY

The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans will come to

order. Today we are discussing H.R. 2496, to reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp

Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994, H.R. 2821, the North American Wetlands Conservation Council Expansion Act and H.R. 1775, Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act.

The first bill, H.R. 2496, has been introduced by our friend and Subcommittee

Colleague, Congressman Solomon Ortiz of Texas. This bill would reauthorize the

Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act. This innovative idea was

first enacted in 1994 and it has allowed thousands of school children from kindergarten to high school to participate in a nationwide wildlife art contest. This program has also motivated students to take an active role in learning about and conserving our nation’s wildlife resources. This measure does not make any significant

changes in the underlying Act but it will extend the annual competition, the marketing of these stamps and the awards program for an additional five years.

The second bill, H.R. 2821, has been recently introduced by the two House Members who serve with great distinction on the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. This proposal by our colleagues, Congressmen John Dingell and Curt Weldon,

would increase from three to five the number of non-governmental representatives

that may serve on the North American Wetlands Conservation Council. This Council

has been instrumental in approving hundreds of worthwhile conservation projects

that have saved over 32 million acres of essential wetlands in Canada, Mexico and

the United States.

Finally, H.R. 1775, to catalyze estuary restoration and coordinate Federal estuarine activities. This is an excellent bill, and this action is long overdue from the Federal Government. I am a cosponsor of this measure, and I commend Mr. Gilchrest

for his leadership on this issue. I remain committed to attacking the problems facing

this nation’s estuaries and to restoring degraded coastal habitat.

Over a decade ago, Congress created the National Estuary Program to address serious environmental problems in estuaries of national significance. These problems

3

include polluted runoff, habitat loss, development pressure, and harmful algal

blooms. Unfortunately, despite a significant amount of planning, very little effort

has been made to implement comprehensive conservation and management plans or

to actively restore the most seriously degraded estuarine areas. I am pleased that

today we are taking positive steps to improve this unacceptable situation.

Mr. SAXTON. Without objection.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, again, I want to thank and commend you for

holding the hearings to consider the bills that are now before the

Subcommittee.

I certainly look forward this morning to the hearing and especially appreciate that you have rescheduled for two days of hearing

on H.R. 1775, a bill introduced by our colleague from Maryland,

Mr. Gilchrest, to facilitate estuary habitat restoration. That was

postponed last week due to Hurricane Floyd.

Mr. Chairman, consequently, we certainly have a busy agenda

this morning. To keep things moving along, I will defer at this time

from formally commenting on H.R. 2496, to reauthorize the Junior

Duck Stamp Program. Actually, I do approve and support very

much the proposed bill by our good friend and member of this Subcommittee from Texas, Mr. Ortiz, as well as the expanding the

North American Wetlands Conservation Council by two seats.

I enjoy and welcome our distinguished colleague, Mr. Dingell,

who is not here yet, but I certainly welcome him for hearing and

I’m looking forward to his testimony and certainly look forward to

hearing from our friend from Texas, Mr. Ortiz, on his bill.

Mr. Chairman, on H.R. 1775, again, I commend my good friend

from Maryland for introducing this legislation. I share his overarching concern regarding the continued loss of estuary habitats

across our nation. Ecologists and researchers estimate that we

have lost well over 90 percent of the estuary wetlands that existed

when European explorers first discovered—and I’d like to change

that word and say the European explorers never discovered this

part of the world. They landed here on this continent 400 years

ago. Even though Columbus got lost, Mr. Chairman, but they came

here nevertheless.

The estuaries, such as San Francisco Bay, Puget Sound, Long Island Sound and Chesapeake Bay, once renowned for their high ecological productivity, are now mere vestiges of their former selves.

To restore past ecological abundance is to begin to understand

how much we have all lost and, most importantly, how far we must

go to restore what has been despoiled.

Mr. Chairman, the decline in estuary habitat has been well documented in the scientific and resource management literature for

over 30 years. We are now beginning to see what this loss means

to the environment, expressed through the declines in commercial

fisheries, saltwater intrusion, coastal aquifers, and shoreline erosion and subsidence threatened, even private property.

A loss of estuary wetlands also has contributed to a declining

water quality in these areas and these habitats serve as natural filters for pollutants.

Mr. Chairman, the impacts are real and should surprise no one.

What does remain surprising is the stubborn insistence of some

critics in the development and resource extraction industries who

believe that we can continue to fill in and pave over our estuary

4

habitats, somehow believing the ecosystem is left unaltered and

that our human environment is not diminished.

Simply a charade to contend that this loss of estuary habitat, Mr.

Chairman, has not had a pernicious impact on both our environment and the economy.

Just ask any unemployed commercial fisherman or an angler

who has lost his favorite fishing area and he will tell you otherwise, or just ask the economists who recently estimated the dollar

value of services provided at no cost to us by various natural environments.

Estuaries weigh in at $56,000 per acre per year for a global total

of $4 trillion per year.

Mr. Chairman, after reviewing the bill, I believe H.R. 1775 would

provide a reasonable balanced approach to help preserve remaining

estuary habitats and would stimulate practical and effective environmental restoration on the local level.

Particularly, I am pleased that the legislation incorporates an administrative structure similar to the model currently authorized

under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, or NAWCA.

I believe that the NAWCA model can be adapted successfully to

administer a national estuary habitat restoration program and I

will be interested to hear if our other witnesses share this view.

One very important concern that I do have with the legislation

is that it would exclude the Great Lakes States from participation.

Plainly stated, Mr. Chairman, the exclusion is unwarranted, unnecessary, and perhaps even, I might say, unfair. But I do hope, Mr.

Chairman and our good friend from Maryland, your support of this

would add the Great Lakes, as well as the other areas that are

part of our great nation.

This bill proposes an artificial distinction that is inconsistent

within the statutes. For example, the Great Lakes are fully recognized under the Coastal Zone Management Act. Furthermore, degraded wetlands habitats, wherever they are located, are worthy of

restoration and should receive equal consideration, regardless of

whether they are salty or freshwater.

With that said, I would say that my good from Maryland, Mr.

Gilchrest’s legislation is a very good step. I believe that with some

pragmatic modifications, that maybe we can make it even more effective.

I look forward to working together with the gentleman from

Maryland and look forward to hearing from our witnesses this

morning.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Faleomavaega follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. THE HONORABLE ENI F. H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF AMERICAN SAMOA

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I look forward to this morning’s hearing. I especially

appreciate that you have rescheduled for today the hearing regarding H.R. 1775,

Mr. Gilchrest’s bill to facilitate estuary habitat restoration, that was postponed last

week due to Hurricane Floyd.

Consequently, we certainly have a busy agenda this morning. To keep things moving along, I will defer at this time from formally commenting on either H.R. 2496,

which would reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp Program, or H.R. 2821, which

would expand the North American Wetlands Conservation Council by two seats. Mr.

Chairman, I join you in welcoming our esteemed colleague and avid sportsman from

5

Michigan, Mr. Dingell, and I await with interest his comments regarding this legislation.

I do have some brief remarks regarding H.R. 1775, and I commend my good friend

from Maryland for again introducing this legislation.

I share his overarching concern regarding the continued loss of estuary habitats

across our Nation. Ecologists and researchers estimate that we have lost well over

90 percent of the estuarine wetlands that existed when European explorers first discovered this continent 400 years ago. Estuaries such as San Francisco Bay, Puget

Sound, Long Island Sound and Chesapeake Bay—once renowned for their high ecological productivity—are now mere vestiges of their former selves. To read historical

accounts of past ecological abundance is to begin to understand how much we have

all lost, and most importantly, how far we must go to restore what has been despoiled.

The decline in estuary habitat has been well-documented in the scientific and resource management literature for over 30 years. Worse, we are now beginning to

see what this loss means to the environment expressed through declines in commercial fisheries, salt water intrusion ruining coastal aquifers, and shoreline erosion

and subsidence threatening public and private property. Loss of estuarine wetlands

also has contributed to declining water quality in these areas, as these habitats

serve as natural filters for pollutants. Mr. Chairman, the impacts are real and

should surprise no one.

What does remain surprising is the stubborn insistence of some critics in the development and resource extraction industries who believe that we can continue to

fill in and pave over our estuary habitats and somehow believe that the ecosystem

is left unaltered, and that our human environment is not diminished.

It is simply a charade to contend that this loss of estuary habitat has not had

a pernicious impact on both our environment and economy. Just ask any unemployed commercial fishermen, or an angler who’s lost a favorite fishing area, and

they will tell you otherwise. Or just ask the economists who recently estimated the

dollar value of services provided—at no cost to us—by various natural environments.

Estuaries weigh in at $56,000 per acre per year, for a global total of $4 trillion per

year.

After reviewing the legislation, I believe that H.R. 1775 would provide a reasonable, balanced approach to help preserve remaining estuarine habitats and would

stimulate practical and effective environmental restoration on the local level. Particularly, I am pleased that the legislation incorporates an administrative structure

similar to the model currently authorized under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, or NAWCA. I believe that the NAWCA model can be adapted successfully to administer a national estuary habitat restoration program, and I will be interested to hear if of our witnesses share this view.

One very important concern that I do have with this legislation is that it would

exclude the Great Lakes States and insular areas from participation. Plainly stated,

this exclusion is unwarranted, unnecessary and unfair, and I hope the Chairman

and the sponsor will support the addition of these areas.

This bill proposes an artificial distinction that is inconsistent with other statutes.

For example, the Great Lakes States and insular areas are fully recognized under

the Coastal Zone Management Act. Furthermore, degraded wetland habitats—wherever they are located—are worthy of restoration and should receive equal consideration, regardless of whether they are saline or freshwater.

With that said, Mr. Gilchrest’s legislation is a good first step, and I believe with

some pragmatic modifications, that it can be made even more effective. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Maryland, and of course with you Mr.

Chairman, to move this important legislation forward in the process.

Mr. SAXTON. I thank the gentleman for a very thoughtful statement. Just to amplify on what the gentleman just said, it was just

a day or so ago that we were successful in adding several thousand

more acres to the Coastal Barriers Resources system and we thank

you for your cooperation, and I say that from the bottom of my

heart, as you know.

Mr. Ortiz.

6

STATEMENT OF HON. SOLOMON ORTIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and

the Ranking Member for having this hearing today and for including the Junior Duck Stamp legislation on the agenda.

I had the honor of sponsoring the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act back in the 103rd Congress, when I

was a Subcommittee chairman of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee.

The purpose of the program, as specified in the law, is to provide

elementary and secondary school students with educational opportunities relating to the conservation and management of migratory

birds. The program is also intended to increase the capacity for

schools, states and other educational programs to conduct conservation and education programs.

As I was preparing for this hearing, I was pleased to hear the

progress that has been made with this program. I am sure I am

not the only person here who knows the importance of programs

of this type to the future of our nation.

As economic and population growth continues and increasingly

impacts our environment and natural resources, we have to work

harder to find ways to preserve both our world and our standard

of living. I would agree, solutions to these types of problems begin

with knowledge and understanding and these begin with, of course,

education.

This is where the benefits of programs such as the Junior Duck

Stamp Program will be embraced by society. I am proud to be a

part of the program that reaches out to grade school students to

teach an appreciation for environmental science and habitat conservation, while also rewarding hard work and effort with support

for continuing education.

I can see how this is a great tool to help educate students who

have not had the opportunities that some of my colleagues and I

have had to spend time in nature and develop an appreciation of

our resources and their management.

I thank our witnesses for being with us today and look forward

to hearing their testimony. Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you.

Mr. SAXTON. I thank the gentleman. I would now like to introduce someone who truly needs no introduction, Mr. John Dingell,

one of our most outstanding conservationists in the House, who is

here to discuss the North American Wetlands Conservation Council

Act of 1999.

My good friend, John Dingell, if you would take your place and

proceed as you are comfortable, sir.

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. DINGELL. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the outstanding

work of this Subcommittee. I feel very comfortable because I’ve

spent a lot of time here in this room, both as a member of the Merchant Marine Fisheries Committee, which was just referred to by

my good friend Mr. Ortiz, and, also, as a member of the Commerce

Committee.

7

This is indeed the home of great conservation legislation and it

has a proud history both in earlier days and also under your leadership, and I’d like to say how pleased I am to see my old friend

Mr. Faleomavaega here and to have an opportunity to listen to him

and to you, and, also, to my friend Mr. Ortiz.

I have a lengthy statement, Mr. Chairman, which I, with your

permission, would like to insert into the record. It is on H.R. 2821,

and I will try to summarize briefly the purposes behind that particular legislation.

You might be inquiring as to why it is I suggest a change be

made. The legislation is a surprisingly important piece of legislation. In fact, NAWCA has been an enormous success. It’s funded

629 projects between 1991 and 1999.

It’s helped to restore, enhance or help approximately 34 million

acres across this continent to achieve higher levels of conservation

and wildlife use values.

It’s triggered a ratio of partner-to-government contributions in

which $2.50 of private money have matched every public dollar

that has been spent. This investment is triggered by something

which tends to indicate success. The Council which handles this is

a nine-member panel. This legislation would increase it to 11.

The reason is, of course, that we’re finding that in success and

in matters where conservation is vitally concerned, there is a desire

for a large number of organizations to participate and a desire on

the part of the Administration to see to it that—and that would be

true of any Administration—that the benefits are achieved by sharing the participation in the business of the Council and representation on that Council rather broadly.

Two very distinguished organizations which have worked very

hard on this panel were scheduled to be dropped, the Ducks Unlimited and also the Nature Conservancy. These are two institutions

that put hundreds of thousands, indeed millions of dollars into this

program and into other land conservation and wildlife conservation

programs.

I think that it would be unwise to drop them. I’m told that now

Ducks Unlimited is going to be reappointed, although I’ve not

heard of this, but officially, and that the other organization is not

seeking at this time particular membership on the Council.

Very frankly, it seems to me that if we need additional representation on the Council and additional participation to expand not

only the membership, but the opportunity of different organizations

to serve here and to become participants and enthusiastic participants in the program, it would appear that we should, however, at

the same time, keep both the Nature Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited, because of the sterling reputation they have and because

of the superb work they have done in participation in particularly

the conservation of lands, but also conservation of wildlife and specifically in areas involving wetlands, migratory birds and things of

that sort.

So the legislation is really very simple. It will ease the pressure

in the Administration to cut off those who are serving well and

very, very effectively, in the best traditions of wildlife conservation,

while, at the same time, affording them the opportunity to appoint

8

several new members to the Commission, which would be, in that

fashion, very beneficial to all.

I would observe that my good friend, Mr. Weldon, who serves

with me on the Migratory Bird Commission, which works very

closely with this panel and indeed approves the projects that they

recommend, or disapproves, and we haven’t disapproved any, is

also a co-sponsor of the legislation and feels, as I do, that we need

to move forward to expand the capability of the Commission to do

the things that it needs to do in terms of encouraging public participation by private citizens and private organizations in the conservation of wetlands under the North American Wetlands Conservation Council Expansion Act of 1999.

I want to commend this Committee and you, Mr. Chairman, for

the fine leadership you’ve shown in matters of this kind. I hope

that you will not consider that I’m wasting the time of this Committee by bringing to you a relatively piddly matter. I would observe that small matters oft times are very important to greater

successes and this appears to fall into that area.

So with those remarks, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy, the great work that you and the Committee are doing, and

for permitting me to appear here this morning to share these

thoughts with you and for your consideration of this bill.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dingell follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. Chairman, I recently introduced H.R. 2821, the ‘‘North American Wetlands

Conservation Council Expansion Act of 1999.’’I want to thank you and your Subcommittee staff for your generosity in granting a hearing on this legislation so

quickly. I hope that H.R. 2821 might remain on a swift course so that the great benefits of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) will be fully employed to conserve more wildlife habitat.

This legislation would make a modest improvement to a conservation law that has

successfully saved wetlands throughout the United States, Canada, and Mexico during the past decade. The North American Wetlands Conservation Act was signed

into law in 1989 in response to the finding that more than half of the original wetlands in the United States had been lost during the past two centuries. Congress

recognized that protection of migratory birds and their habitats required long-term

planning and coordination so that our treaty obligations to conserve these precious

species would be met.

The purpose of NAWCA is to encourage partnerships among public and non-public

interests to protect, enhance, restore and manage wetlands for migratory birds and

other fish and wildlife in North America. NAWCA has been a tremendous success,

funding 629 projects between 1991 and 1999, helping to restore, enhance or help approximately 34 million acres across our continent. Most impressive has been the

ratio of partner-to-government contributions, which has been about $2.50 for every

public dollar invested.

A little more than one year ago I first learned of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s

desire to promote change in the NAWCA program when the agency announced its

intent not to reappoint two non-governmental organizations that played key roles

in making NAWCA a cornerstone of American conservation success. I was greatly

concerned that any replacement of Council members under NAWCA should not

serve as a disincentive to continued active participation in meeting the Act’s goals.

I inquired of the Fish and Wildlife Service why it was attempting to replace existing Council members. The Fish and Wildlife Service informed me that it sought to

ensure more diversity on the Council. One organization chose to leave the Council,

I was informed. The other chose to continue to seek reappointment. Recently my office region’s quality of life and recreational value. The Bay Area economy is driven

by industries that are located in the Bay Area because they choose to be here—and

they choose this reason because valuable employees appreciate the quality of life in

the Bay Area.

9

As species such as the Delta smelt and the winter run Chinook salmon have been

protected under the Endangered Species Act, water users, including the East Bay

Municipal Utilities District and the Contra Costa Water District have faced increasing restrictions on their ability to take water from the Delta. Restoring habitat is

not the entire answer to this fisheries and ESA crisis, but it is a part of the solution.

If we can restore habitat and ecosystem health, it will have direct benefits for local

residents and the state’s economy.

The Region and the State of California Understand the Need For Estuary

Restoration

There is a regional consensus in California that the restoration of habitat in the

Bay-Delta Estuary should be a major priority. The state is already making funding

available for the restoration of habitat in the Estuary, through Proposition 204, in

1996. This year, Governor Davis just signed a budget with $10 million for a new

San Francisco Bay Conservancy—with a major focus on habitat restoration.

Save The Bay is taking a leadership role to restore wetlands habitat, working

with other regional and local environmental organizations, private and public conservancies, farmers, landowners and other constituency groups, promoting policies

that encourage restoration, and building alliances and partnerships to advance restoration throughout the region.

We have also learned in the Bay Area that habitat restoration can help solve

some of our dredging needs. Several years ago, for example, the Port of Oakland,

with the support of environmentalists, fishermen and state and Federal agencies,

used millions of cubic yards of clean mud dredged from its channels to restore wetlands at a site called Sonoma Baylands. This project has been cited as a national

model of cost-effective sustainable development. However, restoration does cost

somewhat more than the old practice of dumping all of this material in the Central

Bay. There are several other similar projects under development. Funding from H.R.

1775 could be invaluable for advancing this work.

Last year, another wetland restoration project was dedicated in the North Bay,

affecting 300 acres of wetlands at Tolay Creek in the North Bay. What made this

project particularly interesting was its broad support from environmentalists and

farmers. Environmentalists and farmers in California often fight over water and

wetlands issues. However, this restoration project helped farmers resolve permitting

issues that had troubled their levee maintenance work. H.R. 1775 would provide for

cooperation with private land owners to solve environmental problems that, if left

unaddressed, could threaten the environmental and economic health of the Bay

Area and many other coastal areas around the nation.

This legislation can be a catalyst for estuary restoration, eventually providing

over $75 million per year of new Federal resources to achieve an actual increase

of one million acres of habitat by 2010. It will also give local communities and our

organizations a real voice in shaping restoration projects through voluntary efforts

and public-private partnerships. It recognizes the value of watershed planning efforts and voluntary efforts by citizens groups helping with actual, on-the-ground restoration, and makes these a priority for funding. It will also improve coordination

among Federal programs and agencies, and streamline their efforts to collaborate.

H.R. 1775 provides funding through the Army Corps of Engineers—and this bill

could be one of the most important statutory efforts to reform the Corps’ practices

and shift its mandate and mission toward restoration. The Corps itself has said that

it wants one third of its budget devoted to restoration within five years.

In case anyone wonders why we need funding through this bill, given the existing

Federal funding for CALFED, it is important to underscore that CALFED’s funding

authorization expires this year. The CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program also

does not include the entire Bay, instead emphasizing the Delta and upstream areas.

The lower reach of the estuary needs more attention, and this bill would help meet

that need. While we work to renew the CALFED funding authorization, we need

H.R. 1775 to help build a national constituency for estuarine restoration. Not only

is that appropriate, but it will help maintain the Federal presence and effort to restore our estuary over the long term.

All of these factors explain for the bill’s broad support among local organizations

around the nation, and among the Federal agencies themselves.

We deeply appreciate the efforts of Representatives Gilchrest and Tauscher to

work for preservation and restoration of our nation’s estuaries, and we encourage

you and all members of the House to swiftly pass this legislation.

Thank you for your consideration.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. And, believe me, we don’t

think that you are wasting our time in any way, shape or form.

10

When we have a program that works as well as this one does,

where we appropriate a dollar and it turns into two or three because of contributions that interested parties make, certainly this

is in no way, shape or form a waste of time, and we thank you for

being here.

I would just say that my inclination is just to say, at this point,

that people who are involved in this program make these contributions and if we can get more people interested and involved in the

program to make more contributions, so much the better.

So I don’t have any questions at this time, but I would like to

commend you for your forethought and bringing this matter to our

attention, and we intend to move forward with it as expeditiously

as possible.

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, would like

to associate myself with your comments made earlier concerning

Mr. Dingell’s statement. Perhaps, just for the record, to my good

friend from Michigan, my own personal welcome for him to testify

this morning.

As you well know, Mr. Dingell, the Department of the Interior

did something very funny last year and, perhaps for the record, if

you could explain to the members of the Committee, this rotation

consecutive appointment seems to have done something to the way

the law had originally constituted the membership of the Council.

Can you share with the members of the Committee how this has

affected your decision, with Mr. Weldon, to introduce this legislation, to increase the membership?

Mr. DINGELL. Yes, I will, and I thank you for that question.

Originally, there were to be three private organizational members,

which would be generally representative of the conservation community.

It was to derive the benefit of their expertise, to achieve the benefit of their support, and also to encourage their participation and

that of others in the conservation community and program, which,

as mentioned by the Chair, has been enormously successful because it brings in about $2.50 worth of private money for every dollar we spend of Federal money, and people are confident that this

program is saving money because the areas are held under longterm contract and have the prestige of being denominated as essentially government or quasi-governmental undertakings. So people

are comfortable giving money to carry these programs forward.

What has transpired is that the success of this has led the Secretary, and I think in a proper exercise of his judgment, to say,

well, we want to spread the opportunity for responsible organizations around, to permit them to serve on this panel.

This would have the practical effect, and I agree with it, of increasing the support that is out there in the society generally, particularly in the organized conservation community.

Having said that, at the same time, however, we drop the two

organizations that participate most extensively and in terms of the

largest contributions, in terms of money and time and manpower

and so forth: Ducks Unlimited, which is an extraordinary organization, a great treasure, and the Nature Conservancy.

11

Their purposes are slightly different, but they’re all geared to

buying land and at conserving and preserving the wildlife resources and the other environmental values.

So I find that the two purposes, the purpose of seeing to it that

we encourage the participation by those who do the most, is somewhat at war with the idea of spreading it around to attract greater

public attention and greater public support.

This is an attempt to meet the concerns of the Department, to

see to it that we do keep the big givers and the people who do the

most in a position where they can continue to do that and enthusiastically support it, while, at the same time, affording the Secretary the opportunity to provide some additional recruitment of

public support for the program.

I think that in that particular, this is a pretty good compromising resolution for the difficulty that we confront and it doesn’t

make it so big that we run into social problems inside the institution.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the gentleman for a very comprehensive explanation, and I do support the gentleman’s bill, by

the way. Thank you.

Mr. DINGELL. I thank my good friend and I would say to him

hoya ah.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I think the Chairman probably doesn’t know

what that means, but maybe one day when you come see the South

Pacific, we will share with him the meaning of those words.

Mr. DINGELL. We will sing him a song.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. Mr. Ortiz.

Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that it’s an honor to

have the dean of the House with us this morning, and I think that

you have a good bill and I’ll support it. Thank you, Mr. Dingell.

Mr. DINGELL. I thank you. I’m honored to be here, Mr. Chairman. You are three distinguished members and we all have large

reason to be grateful to all of you for your leadership and for your

hard work in these matters. Thank you.

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SAXTON. We want to thank you for being here this morning,

John. Your testimony is much appreciated.

We will now move on. I will now introduce the second panel. We

have with us Tom Melius, the Assistant Director of External Affairs at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

I just would like to say, as a reminder, that the five-minute rule,

of course, is in effect. Your testimony will be included in its entirety for the written record, and I now recognize Tom for his statement.

STATEMENT OF TOM MELIUS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. MELIUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Tom Melius,

Assistant Director for External Affairs for the Fish and Wildlife

Service, and I appreciate the opportunity to appear today to discuss

the first two bills at this hearing.

12

The Fish and Wildlife Service strongly supports H.R. 2496, the

reauthorization of the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design

Program, which was introduced by Congressman Ortiz. H.R. 2496

would reauthorize the administrative expenses for the Junior Duck

Stamp Program at $25,000 for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005.

In 1989, the Junior Duck Stamp Program was developed initially

by the Service with a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife

Foundation. The program was sanctioned and expanded by Congress in 1994.

This program is designed to offer young people from kindergarten to high school the opportunity to learn about wetlands,

water fowl and wildlife conservation through their participation in

an integrated curriculum of environmental science and the arts.

The highlight of the program is the annual Junior Duck Stamp

contest. All 50 states and the District of Columbia participate. The

Service owes a great deal of appreciation to the volunteers who assist with this program. These volunteers are responsible for many

activities, such as receiving and recording the art and selecting the

contest sites annually.

The Service believes the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and

Design Program plays an important role in the education of our

youth, for it instills in them a strong environmental conservation

ethic. Currently, over 100,000 young people in the public, private

and home-school programs participate. The Service strongly supports adoption of H.R. 2496.

The next bill, H.R. 2821, the North American Wetland Council

Expansion Act, introduced by Congressman Dingell and co-sponsored by Congressman Weldon, amends the North American Wetland Conservation Act to expand the Wetlands Council by adding

two additional non-governmental organizations to the nine-member

group.

The North American Wetland Conservation Act provides matching grants to private and public organizations and individuals who

have developed partnerships to carry out wetland conservation

projects in the United States, Canada and Mexico.

From 1991 through March 1999, over 900 partners have been involved in 684 projects, supported with over $287 million in Federal

funding and total partner contribution exceeding the $272 million

figure, a ratio of $2.5 for every one dollar of Federal funding, a very

great leverage.

The North American Wetland Conservation Act also directs the

Secretary of the Interior to appoint state and non-government

agencies to the nine-member council, with permanent seats for the

Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service and a representative from

the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The states are represented by state directors from four of the states representing the

four flyways.

The three NGO organizations are required to be active participants in wetland conservation projects. Both the states and nongovernmental members are appointed to serve three-year terms.

The North American Wetland Conservation Act is one of the

most successful and non-controversial Federal conservation laws,

mainly due to the partnerships that have been formed for on-theground restoration efforts. The Council embodies these successful

13

partnerships and represents the broad-based coalition of interests

committed to the protection of wetlands and migratory birds.

For these reasons, the Service does not believe the Council needs

to be expanded to meet its current mission. However, should Congress expand the mission of the Council, as has been discussed, in

conjunction with the debate on the Neotropical Migratory Bird

Conservation Act, then the addition of two members may bring additional new expertise and perspective to the Council.

The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, which the

Senate passed in April of 1999, and is awaiting floor action in the

House, as well as a bill very similar that was passed out of the Resources Committee, establishes a grant program to provide assistance in the conservation of neotropical migratory birds.

The legislation encourages the Secretary of the Interior to establish an advisory group to provide guidance in implementing a

grants program. If that legislation is enacted, the Service intends

to designate the North American Wetland Council as the advisory

group for that program.

This program would bring the expertise and experience of the

Council to the full range of needs of neotropical migratory birds.

Recognizing this opportunity, the Service believes that if the

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act were enacted, expanding the Council to include additional non-governmental groups

with expertise in Latin America and the Caribbean and neotropical

migratory bird conservation, it would make sense to enhance the

Council’s current expertise and representation.

The Service looks forward to working with Congressman Dingell

and the Subcommittee to explore these opportunities to fulfill all

needs of migratory birds, including neotropical migrants, water

fowl and others.

This concludes my statement and I would be pleased to answer

any questions the Committee may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Melius follows:]

STATEMENT OF THOMAS O. MELIUS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Chairman, I am Tom Melius, Assistant Director for External Affairs for the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I appreciate the opportunity to appear today to discuss these two Fish and Wildlife Service bills the Subcommittee is considering.

H.R. 2496, Reauthorization of the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program

The Fish and Wildlife Service strongly supports H.R. 2496, which was introduced

by Congressman Solomon P. Ortiz. We would like to thank Mr. Ortiz for introducing

this bill and for his continued support of this program.

H.R. 2496 would reauthorize administrative expenses for the Junior Duck Stamp

Conservation and Design Program at $250,000 for fiscal year 2001 through fiscal

year 2005. Funds appropriated under this program are used for various purposes,

including salary and travel expenses for the Junior Duck Stamp Manager, travel expenses for the Junior Duck Stamp winners and their teachers and parents, mailing

contest information and scholarships and ribbons for contest participants.

In 1989, the Federal Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program was

developed initially by the Service with a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife

Foundation. The program was sanctioned and expanded by Congress in 1994, with

the enactment of Public Law 103-340.

This innovative program is designed to offer young people from kindergarten to

high school the opportunity to learn about wildlife conservation through an integrated art and science curriculum. The primary focus of the wildlife conservation

program, which complements the regular environmental education curriculum for

14

students, is waterfowl and wetland education. The highlight of the program is the

Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design art contest held annually and modeled

after the successful Federal Duck Stamp. The Junior Duck Stamp program experienced a humble start with two states participating—California and Florida. Today,

all fifty States and the District of Columbia participate.

Each year, as part of their environmental education studies, students throughout

the Nation submit their designs relating to conservation of migratory birds (waterfowl entries) to a designated site in their State to be judged by volunteers who are

versed in art and wildlife. The ‘‘Best of Show’’ designs in the State are forwarded

to Washington, DC, where they are judged by a panel of five judges. The first place

design in the national contest becomes the Federal Junior Duck Stamp. The Junior

Duck Stamp, which sells for $5, is a collectible and is not used for hunting.

Because of the limited resources, States rely heavily on volunteers. These volunteers receive the art, record it, prepare the art for display and decide where in the

State the contest will be held. Following the contest, they prepare the art for its

return and prepare certificates of appreciation and ribbons for contest participants.

Without these volunteers, the Junior Duck Stamp program could not be the success

that it is.

The Service believes the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program

plays an important role in the education of our youth and it instills in them an environmental conservation ethic. In 1998, over 42,000 students entered the art contest.

Educators who have consulted with the Service on the development of the Program,

estimate that for every student who enters the art contest ten other students actually participate in the curriculum. In addition, the winning designs are displayed

at State Fairs, National Wildlife Refuges, art galleries, museums, and government

buildings, encouraging and educating students and the public.

The Service strongly supports H.R. 2496, and we encourage Congress to pass this

important legislation to help the Service continue providing this educational program for young people.

H.R. 2821, North American Wetlands Council Expansion Act of 1999

The Service would like to thank Congressman Dingell and the Subcommittee for

your continued interest in and support of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) and the work of the North American Wetlands Council. H.R.

2821 would amend NAWCA to expand the Council by adding two additional nongovemmental organizations to the nine-member group. While the Service does not

oppose the bill, we believe it is unnecessary because the Council has been working

successfully for ten years to advance the goals of wetlands and migratory bird conservation.

History of NAWCA

NAWCA provides matching grants to private or public organizations and individuals who have developed partnerships to carry out wetlands conservation projects

in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The law was originally passed to support

activities under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, an international

agreement that provides a strategy for the long-term protection of wetlands and associated upland habitats needed by waterfowl and other migratory birds in North

America. NAWCA established a nine-member Council to review grant proposals and

recommend approval of qualifying projects to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (MBCC).

In 1998, Congress reauthorized appropriations for NAWCA through fiscal year

2003, reflecting the strong support shared by Congress and the public for the Act’s goals. The ceiling for appropriations for NAWCA is $30 million per year, and Congress has appropriated $15 million for projects in fiscal year 1999, the highest level

appropriated to date.

Successes of NAWCA

From 1991 through March 1999, over 900 partners, including environmental

groups, sportsmen’s groups, corporations, farmers and ranchers, small businesses,

and private citizens have been involved in 684 projects under NAWCA. The law requires that U.S. and Canadian partners focus on protecting, restoring, and/or enhancing important habitat for migratory waterfowl and other birds. In Mexico, partners may develop training and management programs and conduct studies on sustainable use, in addition to habitat protection. NAWCA has supported projects with

a total of over $287 million in Federal funding, and total partner contributions have

exceeded $727 million. The law requires non-Federal matching dollars of 1: 1; however, partners have averaged 2.5 dollars for every Federal dollar. This tremendous

leveraging has enabled well over 8 million acres of wetlands and associated uplands

to be acquired, restored, or enhanced in the United States and Canada, while over

15

26 million acres in Mexico’s large biosphere reserves have been affected through

conservation education and management planning projects.

Current Operations of the Council

NAWCA directs the Secretary of the Interior to appoint State and non-governmental agencies to the nine-member Council, with permanent seats for the Director

of the Fish and Wildlife Service and a representative from the National Fish and

Wildlife Foundation. The States are represented by State Directors of Fish and

Wildlife Agencies and represent the four migratory bird flyways. The three nongovermental organizations are required to be active participants in wetlands conservation projects. Both the States and non-governmental members are appointed

by the Secretary to serve three-year terms. The Secretary is authorized to appoint

one alternate member to the Council, who is able to vote if one of the nine seats

is vacant or a voting member is absent from a meeting. The Secretary is also encouraged to appoint ex officio members to the Council, who are not voting members

but able to participate actively in the selection process. Currently one non-governmental organization holds this status. Mexico and Canada also have ex officio membership and participate in the decisions of the Council. The Council meets three

times a year to review and rank project proposals and is served by staff which provides extensive technical advice. The Council recommends projects to the MBCC,

which has the authority to approve funding for projects.

Over the past ten years, the current nine-member Council has successfully collaborated to select the most important projects to protect migratory birds and their

habitats and further the goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.

Part of the success of NAWCA has been the fair, equitable and non-biased way in

which the Council has formulated sound recommendations to the MBCC. The results speak for themselves. NAWCA is one of the most successful and non-controversial Federal conservation laws; mainly due to the partnerships that have been

formed for on-the-ground restoration efforts. The Council embodies these successful

partnerships and represents the broad-based coalition of interests committed to the

protection of wetlands and migratory birds. For these reasons, the Service does not

believe the Council needs to be expanded to meet its current mission. However,

should Congress expand the mission of the Council as has been discussed in conjunction with debate on the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, then the

addition of new members may bring important new expertise and perspectives to

the Council.

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation

The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, which the Senate passed in

April 1999 and is awaiting floor action in the House, establishes a grants program

to provide assistance in the conservation of neotropical migratory birds. The legislation encourages the Secretary of the Interior to establish an advisory group to provide guidance in implementing the grants program. If that legislation is enacted, the

Service intends to designate the North American Wetlands Council as the advisory

group for this program. This proposal would bring the expertise and experience of

the Council to the full range of needs for neotropical birds that depend on healthy

habitat throughout their migratory life cycles. Conservation of all migratory birds,

not only in wetlands but in other important habitat areas as well, is already built

into NAWCA. The Council is fully capable of carrying out this advisory role and has

indicated its enthusiasm for doing so.

Recognizing this opportunity, the Service believes that if the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act were enacted, expanding the Council to include two additional non-governmental groups with expertise in Latin America, the Caribbean

and neotropical migratory bird conservation would make sense to enhance the Council’s current expertise. The Service looks forward to working with Congressman Dingell and the Subcommittee to explore these opportunities and fulfill the needs of all

migratory birds including neotropical migrants, waterfowl and others.

This concludes my written testimony, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. GILCHREST [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Melius. I just have

a couple of questions.

How much money did Congress appropriate for the Junior Duck

Stamp Program?

Mr. MELIUS. The Junior Duck Stamp Program receives an annual appropriation of $250,000 a year.

16

Mr. GILCHREST. And how many schools currently receive copies

or applications or information about the program, public and private, and do you target specific schools? Is the country blanketed

with information? What kind of follow-up do you have?

Mr. MELIUS. The latter, as you just mentioned, is more the approach that we have taken. We try to blanket the entire nation

using the database provided to us from the educational organizations, so that every school in our nation will receive information

about how to implement this type of a program.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is it mailed to the individual schools?

Mr. MELIUS. Yes.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is it the school board that gets the information

or the actual high school or middle school?

Mr. MELIUS. I believe it’s through the elementary schools, as well

as including the high schools, so that we get as broad a distribution

as we can, because this is a program that does involve elementary

schools or elementary students, as well as high school students.

Mr. GILCHREST. So it goes to the actual school or to the board

in that county?

Mr. MELIUS. To the actual school itself, I’m told.

Mr. GILCHREST. So you send out tens of thousands of pieces of

literature.

Mr. MELIUS. A brochure that explains the program, as well as

then in each state and all states participate, we have a state coordinator, a volunteer normally, and we will have instructor curriculum, as well as go out and conduct workshops to try to get

more participation in this program.

Mr. GILCHREST. How many schools participate, do you know?

Throughout the country.

Mr. MELIUS. I believe that we have approximately 5,212 schools

that are active participants at this time. We have approximately

42,000 students that are entering art into the contest to be judged

annually in each one of the states. Winners of each one of these

states then is submitted to Washington, DC for a national program,

where we then judge a first and a second and a third place winner.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is it mostly high school students that participate, middle school?

Mr. MELIUS. It depends in each state on just where the enthusiasm lies with a lot of the volunteers and some of the instructors.

We have had past state winners that are from elementary school,

as well as from high schools. Last year, the winner was from Dearborn, Michigan and the winner of this year’s contest, which was

just announced a couple of months ago, was from Illinois.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is there certain criteria, water colors, acrylic, oil,

does that matter?

Mr. MELIUS. The criteria of what type of medium they use is not

really that important. It’s more that they are learning about the

whole water fowl and wildlife experience and incorporate some of

that into the art that they are producing in each one of the states.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. I yield now to Mr.

Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank

Mr. Melius for his statement this morning.

17

I was going through this very beautiful pamphlet or brochure

about the national wildlife refuge system and I notice issues like

Guam, like Baker Island, which I don’t think anybody lives there,

and Howland Island, even Rose Atoll, which is part of my jurisdiction.

Is there any particular reason why these areas are not included

in this legislation? I notice some in Puerto Rico and the 50 states

are part of the participants of the program, but I don’t see any reference made to these areas. Hawaii is an area, even though it’s a

state.

Mr. MELIUS. I’m not certain of—— Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Do you have to have ducks in order to qualify to be a participant?

Mr. MELIUS. I’m not certain why it was not originally included

in the ’94 bill, as adopted by Congress. Since this is a reauthorization, that is something I’m sure could be looked into.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Would the Administration have any objection if I do ask my good friend from Texas and others here to include the insular areas? Would it be an extra cost in the program?

Mr. MELIUS. We feel that as many areas that we can get out this

type of material and participation is just valuable to all of us.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. It’s not so much the money. It’s the program. It’s the orientation. It’s the getting the young people of

America to appreciate what wildlife is all about, especially our appreciation for ducks.

Am I correct in that?

Mr. MELIUS. You’re very correct, as well as all water fowl, not

just only ducks.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Melius, we had earlier the statement

that was made by Congressman Dingell about the proposed bill to

add two additional members to the North American Wetlands Conservation Council. I didn’t get the gist of the Administrations position. Do you oppose the proposal made by the gentleman from

Michigan to add two new members to the Council?

Mr. MELIUS. While we are not opposed to the addition of two additional members to the Council, the Administration believes that,

at this time, under the current mission of the Council, there is a

very strong balance of representation and that with the current

policy of trying to rotate members onto that Council, that the

Council is working very effectively.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But the Interior Department, when they

took this position in ’98, last year, was this part of the authorization of the legislation to allow the Secretary to do this consecutive

term rotation, whatever it is?

Mr. MELIUS. The rotation policy was an effort that I believe the

Fish and Wildlife Service initiated a year ago to try to give better

clarity on just how the Council and the membership on the Council

is going to be implemented.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Not wanting to put words in your mouth,

Mr. Melius, but if I hear what you’re saying, the Administration

does not oppose, but really would prefer not having two additional

members. Am I correct in that?

Mr. MELIUS. If Congress is wanting to have two additional members, of course, we will work with that in every fashion we can. We

18

just feel that the addition of some other areas to the Council may

be a better thing to consider at this time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You say that we have a strong balance, but

what Mr. Dingell is proposing would make it even better. Right?

Mr. MELIUS. We’re trying to work with the Council to make sure

that there is a delicate balance kept. If the addition of two new

members is what the Congress is wanting to do, I’m sure we will

be able to accommodate that.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Melius, you’re very—I like that. Thank

you very much.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Ortiz.

Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Melius, thank you for being with us today. And

I think that you gave a good explanation as to what H.R. 2496

does. I think that there were some very good questions that were

asked.

I guess my question would be, what do you need for us, Congress, to do so that we can meet your plans? I know this is an exciting program. Many children in the middle schools and high

schools take advantage of this program.

What can we do to help you?

Mr. MELIUS. Besides just adoption of this bill to keep the authorization flowing, I would like to thank you personally for the effort

you have shown in this. I remember early in the ’90s specifically

having an opportunity to work in this body on the old Merchant

Marine Fisheries Committee, when the 1994 bill was originally

drafted, an issue that I was involved with at that time.

So I appreciate your steadfast support of this. Obviously, the appropriations are the life blood in allowing us to continue and we’re

very pleased that Congress has been able to provide the full authorization or full appropriations at the authorization level.

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you. And I can assure you that I will do everything, with my good friend from American Samoa, to accommodate

him, to work with him, because he’s bigger than I am.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. ORTIZ. I yield.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Actually, Samoans are very small people.

Just don’t provoke them, that’s all.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. The gentleman from Texas, or the

gentleman from Puerto Rico.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no comments or questions.

Mr. GILCHREST. We thank the agency, Fish and Wildlife, for coming and testifying here this morning. Thank you very much.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Yes.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I just want to ask unanimous consent to

have the statement by Mr. Frank Pallone be made part of the

record.

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

19

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today on H.R. 1775, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act. I know both the Chairman and the sponsor of this legislation have a keen interest in seeing our estuaries preserved and

protected and I commend them for their efforts.

Estuaries are the richest part of our coastal areas, a wealth of biodiversity. They

are havens for migrating shore birds and nurseries for essential fish habitat. They

are critical to the survival of many species, which use estuaries as protective feeding

areas for their young. Estuaries also offer vast scientific, educational, and recreational benefits. They are often the cultural centers of coastal communities. These

fragile areas are also especially vulnerable to the impacts of over-development and

pollution. At the same time, many estuary areas play a large role in local and regional economies. In New Jersey, the New York-New Jersey Harbor and Delaware

Bay estuaries are important maritime commerce areas, and the Barnegat Bay estuary in the Chairman’s district is a critical area for coastal recreation.

H.R. 1775’s goal of restoring one million acres of estuary habitat by the year 2010

follows the spirit of President Clinton’s Clean Water Action Plan which calls for an

increase of 100000 acres of wetlands annually. I would like to hear our witnesses’

views on the bill’s goal of one million restored estuary acres.

I also hope our witnesses today will address the question of whether the bill

should be expanded to include the Great Lakes and territories. I know many members of the Subcommittee would like to see the bill expanded, and I am interested

in hearing what our panelists think about this proposal. Finally, I hope our panelists will comment on the council structure of the created by H.R. 1775 and the advantages to creating these types of partnerships.

Again, I thank the Chairman and the sponsor of this legislation. I am pleased to

see this bill move forward and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact

this legislation.

STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF MARYLAND

Good morning., Today the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and

Oceans will be hearing from various distinguished witnesses regarding the status

of the nation’s estuaries and, in particular, my bill H.R. 1775, the Estuary Habitat

Restoration Partnership Act. This is a topic that has generated considerable interest

this session of Congress, and it is my hope that we can come together to pass meaningful legislation to assist in the restoration of estuary habitat throughout the nation.

Habitat in estuaries has been degraded or destroyed over the past 100 years with

little regard for its many economic values and quality-of-life benefits. Population

growth in coastal watersheds; dredging, draining, bulldozing and paving; pollution;

dams; sewage discharges—these and other impacts from human activities have led

to the extensive loss and continuing destruction of estuary habitat.

For example, in our coastal states, more than half (roughly 55 million acres) of

wetlands have been destroyed. Specific examples include:

In the Chesapeake Bay, 90 percent of sea grass meadows were destroyed by

1990. Over the last 30 years (1959-89), oyster harvest fell from 25 million

pounds to less than one million.

In San Francisco Bay, 95 percent of its original wetlands have been destroyed

and only 300 of the original 6,000 miles of stream habitat in the central valley

support spawning salmon.

70 percent of salt marshes along Narragansett Bay are being cut off from full

tidal flow and 50 percent have been filled; and

Louisiana estuaries continue to lose 25,000 acres annually of coastal marshes,

an area roughly the size of Washington, DC;

For the most part, the loss in each estuary is an accumulation of small development projects and other impacts. The destruction cannot be blamed on one factor

alone, but the cumulative effects of the destruction are surprising in extent and severity, amounting to tens of millions of acres.

We can and must coordinate Federal, state and local management efforts to protect our estuaries. We must also provide sufficient resources for estuary restoration,

without which all of our planning and coordination efforts are useless. Our estuaries

are sick, and planning without implementation is like a diagnosis without any treatment. If we want to bring estuaries back to health, we need to commit the time,

20

money, and creativity necessary to restore the vital organs that make estuaries live

and breathe.

H.R. 1775, the National Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act, is not

about a new layer of Federal bureaucracy—it is about coordination of existing estuary restoration efforts. H.R. 1775 will complement the efforts of programs like the

National Estuary Program (N-E-P) and the Coastal Wetland Conservation Grants

by providing direction to Federal agencies to work together with the states, local

governments, N-E-Ps, conservation groups, and others to address a most critical

need—habitat restoration.

My bill, which has 45 cosponsors, creates a national estuary habitat restoration

council that will be responsible for reviewing and approving project proposals and

developing a national strategy to identify restoration priorities. The council will consist of the Federal agencies that have some responsibility for estuary management—

the Army Corp of Engineers, EPA, NOAA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Transportation.

The council will also include state government representatives from six regional

councils from around the country. The six regional councils will be responsible for

identifying restoration priorities for their member states and forwarding project applications that address those priorities to the national council. Each regional council

is made up of the governor of each state in the region.

The Federal agencies will be expected to provide technical support to these regional councils in the development of their project applications. H.R. 1775 will engage the Federal agencies in new capacities to manage and restore this nation’s estuaries. My bill gives the Army Corps of Engineers the responsibility for managing

the operations of the national and regional councils, and for providing technical assistance on project development and implementation. NOAA is charged with collecting monitoring data on projects and maintaining a database of both successful

and not-so-successful projects. All of the agencies are called upon to work together

to coordinate their efforts and target those estuaries that are identified by the regional councils as priorities.

Despite our best efforts, the restoration of estuary habitat remains a roadblock

to healthy ecosystems in many areas of the country. H.R. 1775 proposes a way to

focus our efforts and to begin targeting specific, regional problems. This will be a

learning experience. The agencies will need to develop new relationships and find

ways to work together. With a comprehensive monitoring database, future project

applicants should be able to learn from past project experiences. I see great potential for a renewed restoration effort, and I look forward to hearing the testimony

on this bill.

STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. GILCHREST. Also, today, the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans will be hearing from various distinguished witnesses regarding the status of the nation’s estuaries; in

particular, my bill, H.R. 1775, the Estuary Habitat Restoration

Partnership Act.

This is a topic that has generated considerable interest of this

session of Congress, mostly favorable interest, but some controversial. It’s my hope that we can come together to pass a meaningful

piece of legislation to assist in the restoration of estuary habitats

throughout the nation.

This is going to be a fairly long statement, but I want to read

it anyway, because it’s a really good statement. That anything we

can do to provide incentive, energy, as politicians say, fire in the

belly, which I never had for politics, but I don’t know, it’s still here.

There’s a lot of work to be done out there and there’s a lot of

good minds out there to do the work. If we can collaborate and coordinate all the various Federal, state and local projects, instead of

the fragmentation that now exists, we can really turn some of this

stuff around.

21

Habitat and estuaries have been degraded or destroyed over the

past 100 years, with little regard for its many economic values and

quality of life benefits. Population growth in coastal watersheds,

dredging, draining, bulldozing, paving, pollution, dams, sewage discharges.

You know, the dynamic balance of nature has its ebbs and flows.

Sometimes things are really good; sometimes, if you have a volcano

explode, it really destroys the landscape. But it has a dynamic element to it.

But with paving, bulldozing, dredging, sewage, there is nothing

dynamic about that. It’s one big massive, dull thud that never gets

out of the way.

These and other impacts of human activities have led to the extensive loss and continuing destruction of estuary habitat. For example, roughly 55 million acres of wetlands have been destroyed.

In the Chesapeake Bay, we’ve lost about 90 percent of sea grass

meadows. San Francisco Bay, 95 percent of its original wetlands

have been destroyed and only 300 of the original 6,000 miles of

stream habitat in the Central Valley support spawning salmon.

We’ve lost 70 percent of the salt marshes in Narragansett Bay.

Louisiana estuaries continue to lose 25,000 acres of coastal

marshes annually, An area roughly the size of Washington, DC.

For the most part, the loss in each estuary is an accumulation

of small projects and other impacts. Let that acre go. Let that halfacre go. Let that 20 acres go. And the cumulative impact, based on

the increase in population, begins to become more of a problem, a

greater impact.

We can and must coordinate Federal, state and local management efforts to protect our estuaries. We must also provide sufficient resources for estuary restoration, without which all of our

planning and coordination efforts are useless.

Our estuaries are sick, and all you have to do is go to one of

them anywhere in the country and you’re not going to see a vibrant, clean, clear body of water. Our estuaries are sick and planning without implementation is like a diagnosis without a treatment. We all know what the problems are, but we can’t quite get

out there in any meaningful way—I know the Corps of Engineers

is doing some work in the Chesapeake Bay on oyster reefs. So is

Fish and Wildlife, so is NMFS, so are any other given agency, but

it’s tiny little pieces, without much coordination.

I’m not being—casting stones to the agencies, but we need something like—you know, we have this funnel, we have this massive

Federal Government that have pieces of certain projects or grants,

but it’s like a strainer. They don’t really get a specific problem in

any big way.

What we’d rather do with our legislation is take this—if you’ve

ever put—what do you call it—transmission fluid in an automatic

car, you have this funnel and this long shaft that goes down into

that tiny little tube. Well, that’s what we want to do. We want to

get all these massive Federal agencies and programs and departments where they can target in a significant way some projects.

We’d like, for example, to—the state has a program to restore 10

percent of the oyster reefs in about 10 years. Well, we think we can

22

do 20 percent of the original oyster reefs in 10 years or less, if you

coordinate all the efforts.

About 1 percent of the oyster production, harvest, is left after

100 years of damming and sewage and cumulative impacts of all

sorts. Just one percent of the oysters are being harvested today of

what it was 100 years ago, lost 99 percent of the resource.

We are fragmenting the environment. Everybody in the room

knows it. And we have a fragmented program to fix it. I’m not saying this piece of legislation is going to solve all the nation’s problems, but I think it would go a long way and it’s a first really good

step in the right direction.

H.R. 1775, the National Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership

Act, is not about—this is important, and I wish my colleague from

Virginia was here to hear this—but if we can get this voted out of

this Committee, it will have a great impact on the Transportation

Committee.

It’s not a matter of a new layer of Federal bureaucracy, and

there’s nothing wrong with bureaucrats, because you’re related to

that system. It is about coordination of existing estuary restoration

efforts.

H.R. 1775 will complement the efforts of programs like the National Estuary Program, by providing direction to Federal agencies

to work together with state and local governments, and we go on.

We have 45 co-sponsors.

The Corps of Engineers, EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Agriculture, Department of Transportation would be the

people who make up this council. The six regional councils would

be responsible for identifying restoration priorities for the member

states and forwarding project applications that address those priorities to the national council.

Each regional council is made up of the governor of each state

in the region. The Federal agencies will be expected to provide

technical support to those regional councils in the development of

their project.

We have the Chesapeake Bay program, and I’m sure they have

similar programs—I know they have similar programs in Louisiana, similar programs in San Francisco. The Chesapeake Bay

program is a good program. There’s a lot of good people that work

there. But there seems to me, and you can correct me if I’m wrong,

that there’s a little bit of—whether it’s agency overlap or not

enough agency collaboration between the Feds and the state and

local private groups, like the Chesapeake Bay Foundation or university scientists, we’d like to get all these people together, all

these bright minds together and use an effective means to specifically target programs that will actually restore some of these estuaries that are having problems.

In spite of our best efforts, the need for restoration of estuary

habitat remains a roadblock to having healthy ecosystems in many

areas of the country. We hope that this bill proposes a way to focus

our efforts and to begin targeting specific regional problems.

This is going to be a learning experience. The agencies will need

to develop new relationships and find ways to work together. With

a comprehensive monitoring database—and I guess I’d like to emphasize that as my last point.

23

We want to do good things, but we want to make sure that those

good things, whether it’s restoring SAVs, oyster restoration, fish

habitat, a whole range of other things, that we monitor what we

do so that we can improve that process.

So at that point of preaching to the choir, I’m going to yield to

my good friend from American Samoa for his opening statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F. H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF AMERICAN SAMOA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for explaining in great detail some of the provisions contained in the proposed bill. And I do want to apologize. I don’t know what happened,

but I would love to be a co- sponsor of this proposed bill, because

I think, in principal, it has tremendous value.

I think the questions of the estuaries existing in our country

needs to be deftly looked upon this and whether it be organizing

or establishing a council similar to what we already have in our

fisheries management council, I think it’s a good idea, a principal

one, a concept.

But I do look forward to hearing from our friends from the Administration and see what their responses, and I look forward to

working with you on the provisions of the bill.

The one thing that I just wanted to raise, and maybe I kind of

read it too casually, was just that the States of California and Hawaii are not included in the regions, unless if I misread the provision of the bill. But I don’t know why, but I get into this position

every time when there’s a proposed bill.

The first question I raise is whether Puerto Rico is included or

whether the insular areas are included. We always seem to be

faced with these kinds of issues whenever legislation is being introduced. With 3.8 million American citizens living in Puerto Rico, I

know perhaps it was just a slight oversight or maybe it was not

intended, but I——

Mr. GILCHREST. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I’d gladly yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Hawaii and California are included and we certainly will ensure that Puerto Rico is included, as well, and American Samoa.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. We do have estuaries. I thank the Chairman and thank you very much for your explanation, and, again, I

want to personally welcome our friends from the Administration

and look forward to hearing their testimony.

Mr. GILCHREST. The gentleman from Puerto Rico.

STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , A COMMISSIONER IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF

PUERTO RICO

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to

welcome the witnesses here today and I’m very glad to be here.

I will have to excuse myself a little later on, because I have another commitment. But I wanted to say that I would like to also

join the Chairman as a co-sponsor of this bill. It’s a very important

and very timely brought up, and I join with my colleague, Mr.

24

Faleomavaega, in requesting to make sure that we are also included in the bill.

Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. We will ensure that before the markup.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Now I would like to introduce our witnesses. We

have Ms. Sally Yozell, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Oceans and

Atmosphere, National Oceanic—I’m going to say NOAA; Mr. Mike

Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army; and, Mr. Gary Frazer, Assistant Director of

Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife.

Thank you for coming this morning. We have a new light system,

but we also want to make sure that your entire statement is read

and we’re not cut off before we miss any important information.

Ms. Yozell, you may go first.

STATEMENT OF SALLY YOZELL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Ms. YOZELL. Thank you very much. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Sally Yozell,

and I’m the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, at the U.S. Department of Commerce.

First, let me thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on

this legislation and, Congressman Faleomavaega, let me also thank

you for your leadership particularly in restoration of marine areas,

such as corals and our great success recently in Pago Pago in removing those vessels. So thank you for your assistance.

This hearing comes at a very timely moment. Estuaries and fisheries from North Carolina through the Chesapeake Bay and up

through the New Jersey coast are suffering from the intense flooding from last week’s hurricane. On Monday, the President declared

a commercial fishery failure in North Carolina as a result of the

hurricane.

We know that oyster beds have been destroyed, other shellfish

are being contaminated, and we’ve only begun to assess the overall

resource damages. Restoration activities can play a key role in how

well and how quickly we can undo some of the damage done from

this recent hurricane.

For example, we can create oyster reefs and create or restore

coastal wetlands to replace those damaged by the storm. Both are

important because they help stabilize the bottom and serve as a

natural filter to minimize the fluxes of sediments and nutrients

into our coastal waters.

Today’s hearing is very timely under these unfortunate circumstances.

I appreciate the Committee’s leadership in focusing on the need

to protect the nation’s estuary and coastal resources. Estuaries are

an important part of our nation’s economic and environmental well

being. These special coastal places provide habitat for many important species, act as a natural water treatment system, provide flood

control and protection against storm damage, and are wonderful

recreational areas.

25

In fact, estuaries and coastal wetlands provide essential habitat

for 80 to 90 percent of our recreational fish catch and 75 percent

of the nation’s commercial harvests.

These natural systems, though, Mr. Chairman, as you just so eloquently pointed out, are in big trouble and they are suffering from

many water quality problems, declining habitat, et cetera.

So NOAA supports your legislation, H.R. 1775. NOAA’s science

and expertise in estuary restoration can contribute significantly in

achieving the goals of this bill, especially when we are coupled with

the capabilities of all the other Federal agencies here and who are

also included in the legislation.

You asked me to focus specifically on six areas, so let me first

comment on those. Regarding the bill’s impact on existing NOAA

restoration programs, I can only say that it will compliment our existing suite of activities in a very major way, and, in particular, the

national council will ensure coordination among the federally-sponsored estuary efforts, as well as with our partners in the local and

state governments.

Second, regarding the structure of the proposed councils, I believe the collaborative approach to restoration fostered by the national council will have a great benefit. Although I strongly support

the involvement of states, local governments and constituents, I’m

not totally certain that having two separate councils is the most efficient way to achieve this.

Perhaps workshops or advisory panels may be more efficient or

even ex-officio members will accomplish the goals, but I’d like to

work with you on that.

Third, concerning the type of restoration that could be conducted,

NOAA envisions a broad range of activities, such as improvements

tidal exchange, dam or berm removals, fish passageway improvements, and the establishment of riparian buffer zones.

I would also encourage that the legislation reward the use of innovative approaches and recommend that each project include a

long-term monitoring phase, as this seems to be the most effective

method to determine success, make corrections and advance the

science of restoration.

Fourth, concerning what we see as NOAA’s main role in the bill,

NOAA looks forward to serving on the national council. We envision providing the scientific and technical expertise gained over

many years of involvement in habitat restoration, and I endorse

the specific role to manage the data collected from all of the restoration projects.

With regard to the funding identified for NOAA to manage the

monitoring data, it seems adequate. However, I’m not confident

there is enough funding to support the full range of administrative

and technical support activities to cover the whole Act.

Fifth, concerning the extent that NOAA participates in and coordinates estuary restoration, NOAA is involved in a wide range of

these activities with other Federal and state partners.

For example, we’re part of Louisiana’s Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act, known as CWPPRA, which

this legislation is closely modeled after. Through CWPPRA, we

have sponsored 17 projects, totaling over $65 million.

26

NOAA’s damage assessment and restoration program, or DARP,

cooperates with many of our Federal and state partners. It restores

coastal and marine resources injured by releases of oil and other

hazardous materials. DARP has obtained more than $250 million

in settlements and has been involved in over 50 restoration

projects.

Then we have a new program that is called our community-based

restoration program, and that works with local communities to restore coastal habitats using small amounts of Federal moneys, and

we have, in the last three years, done over 70 projects.

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I was asked about the role NOAA anticipates for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System.

Through state and Federal partnership, NOAA manages 25 estuarine reserves, totaling over a million acres. To date, there has been

some limited restoration at these sites, but the restoration needs

are significant and this legislation would help significantly in accomplishing this.

For example, the Chesapeake Bay Reserve in Maryland is working to address erosion and habitat loss. Currently, the reserve is

evaluating Maryland’s policies concerning the removal of invasive

marsh grasses. The reserves can also serve as a scientific baseline

where areas of controlled studies can be conducted on restoration

techniques.

If I could, I’d like to make just a couple more comments with regard to the legislation. First, I would recommend that the Great

Lakes states (and I’m happy to hear now that the U.S. Territories

and Commonwealths) should also be included and eligible for assistance. They have important estuaries and analogous restoration

needs.

I also believe the bill should place greater emphasis on the biological significance of restoration, as opposed to just share acreage.

Often, the greater ecological benefit is derived from a small restoration project, not necessarily a larger one.

As you noted earlier, it’s a half-acre here, a full acre there, and

whatever. Sometimes those can be very beneficial in just restoring

that small amount.

And NOAA agrees with you that the priority should be given to

restoration projects that have area-wide restoration plans in place

and, also, the strong effect of non-point and point pollution programs.

Lastly, I would like to remind the Subcommittee that earlier this

year, the President announced his one billion dollar Lands Legacy

Initiative to expand Federal efforts to conserve and restore America’s natural resources. The initiative included $14.7 million increase to improve the reserve system and $22.7 million to fund the

existing community-based restoration program, which I just mentioned.

The House Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations mark includes only $1.35 million for the NERS program increase, and no

increased funding for the community-based restoration effort. I

know that they’re going to conference now and I urge the Committee please to work with the Appropriations Committee.

And, Mr. Chairman, I have to say, we believe that the Subcommittee has taken a very important leadership role in addressVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:18 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\63806 pfrm07 PsN: 63806
27

ing the estuarine restoration issue. NOAA supports the bill, H.R.

1775, and I applaud the efforts that have gone into developing this

important legislation.

I look forward to working with you and the Committee to fine

tune this very commendable legislation, and I’d like to, if I could,

insert my full statement into the record.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Yozell follows:]

STATEMENT OF SALLY YOZELL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

INTRODUCTION

Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My name is

Sally Yozell and I am the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere

for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). I want to thank

you for the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 1775, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1999.

NOAA AND ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION

We appreciate the Committee’s leadership in focusing on the need to protect the

Nation’s estuarine and coastal resources. Estuaries are an important part of our Nation’s economic and environmental well-being. These special coastal places provide

habitat for many important species, act as a natural water treatment system, provide flood control and protection against storm damage, and are wonderful recreational areas. Estuaries and coastal wetlands also provide essential habitat for 80-

90 percent of our recreational fish catch and 75 percent of the Nation’s commercial

harvest.

These natural systems are in trouble. Estuaries are suffering from water quality

problems, declining habitat quality and, in some areas, significant habitat loss. We

desperately need to restore these areas to help replace habitat that fish, marine

mammals and endangered species need to survive and prosper.

Restoration, however, is only part of the answer for degraded estuary and coastal

habitats. The other part is to prevent habitat loss and degradation through sound

conservation and management programs. Nonetheless, there are many instances

where restoration is the only viable alternative. We believe that NOAA’s expert scientific capabilities and experience in estuary and coastal restoration programs can

contribute significantly to achieving the goals of H.R. 1775, especially when coupled

with the science and expertise of other Federal agencies and our state and local

partners. As the Nation’s premier marine and coastal science and management

agency, NOAA brings together a unique combination of scientific expertise and capabilities, a combination which is needed for successful restoration of our valuable estuaries and coastal waters.

H.R. 1775 ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION PARTNERSHIP ACT OF

1999

I now would like to focus my remarks on several specific issues that the Subcommittee has asked NOAA to address.

• How will H.R. 1775 impact existing NOAA habitat restoration programs?

NOAA believes that H.R. 1775 will serve to complement existing habitat restoration programs in a number of ways. The national Estuary Habitat Restoration

Council will help to ensure coordination and cooperation with all federally-sponsored

estuarine habitat restoration efforts. The estuary habitat restoration strategy called

for in H.R. 1775 should aid in keeping these programs focused on the highest priority restoration needs. We also anticipate that some restoration projects supported

under H.R. 1775 can be designed in such a way as to complement those conducted

by NOAA. Finally, we recognize that restoration science is still quite young and as

such, the restoration efforts under this bill would enhance this body of science, especially if H.R.1775 encourages the application of innovative science and technology

in its supported restoration projects.

• What is NOAA’s view on the structure of the proposed councils?

NOAA believes that a collaborative approach to decision making is important. The

proposed national Estuary Habitat Restoration Council should provide for improved

cooperation among Federal agencies. Our experience with collaborative efforts such

as those being conducted as part of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative, the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act and Coastal

28

America programs has demonstrated time and time again that success comes more

easily when Federal agencies work together.

NOAA supports the intent of H.R. 1775 to seek out and obtain the involvement

of coastal states, estuary and coastal managers, local governments, and constituents in the proposed program. Regional and local involvement in national

decision-making and priority setting is critical and should be encouraged in any

legislation for estuary restoration. However, NOAA is concerned that the formal

nature and structure of the proposed Regional Councils could divert limited resources away from restoration projects and slow decision making. We suggest

the use of regional or area workshops or advisory panels. Advisory panels are

especially attractive in that they could have short or long term durations, depending on the issue or issues being addressed, and the Secretary or Council

could have the flexibility to select the appropriate mix of people to serve on the

panels. We have had good success with advisory panels in the management and

conservation of marine resources and believe that they could help serve the

needs of H.R. 1775, as well. Representatives of the regional advisory panels also

could serve as ex-officio members of the national Estuary Habitat Restoration

Council. We note that an August 11, 1999, Department of Justice letter outlines

the Administration’s concerns with a potential constitutional problem under the

Appointments Clause, and we defer to the Department of Justice regarding this

issue.

• What types of restoration activities could be conducted if H.R. 1775 is enacted?

Habitat restoration activities could include improvement of coastal wetland

tidal exchange or reestablishment of historic hydrology, dam or berm removal,

fish ladder or other fish passageway improvements, natural or artificial reef/

substrate/habitat creation, establishment of riparian buffer zones and improvement of freshwater habitat features that support anadromous fishes, planting

of native coastal wetland and submerged aquatic vegetation, and removal of

invasive vegetation. Additionally, we recommend that the habitat restoration

activities include a significant research component to promote the development

of innovative approaches and techniques for estuary habitat restoration. There

should be a major monitoring and evaluation phase for all restoration projects,

as this is the only way to gauge restoration success and advance the science

of estuary restoration.

• What does NOAA see as its main role under H.R. 1775? Does the bill provide

sufficient funding and direction to carry out these activities?

NOAA sees its major role in H.R. 1775 as a contributor of the science and technology we have gained over the years in habitat restoration and in the investigation

of our many coastal and estuarine ecosystems. Additionally, we see a critical role

in ensuring coordination of our ongoing restoration programs with those of H.R.

1775 to minimize redundancies and to complement and capitalize on the achievements of all of the programs. We endorse the specific area of work specified for

NOAA in H.R. 1775 which is to serve on the National Council and to directly support restoration efforts through the collection and management of data related to

the restoration projects.

The funding as proposed in H.R. 1775 is probably adequate to address NOAA’s

role in establishing a monitoring database. NOAA currently is not funded and

staffed to adequately support the Councils and provide the increased technical assistance that would be necessary to meet the needs from partners. We want the majority of funding under the bill to go toward on-the-ground restoration activities.

However, we hope the Congress will provide a reasonable amount of funding to the

Federal agencies to enable us to effectively implement this Act. We support the bill’s

subdivision of the authorization section, providing separate subsections for each of

the following: an authorization of appropriations for restoration activities; monitoring; and a cap on administrative expenses. This is similar to the approach under

the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA).

•To what extent does NOAA currently participate in estuary habitat restoration

efforts? Which programs are involved and what has the agency done to coordinate its efforts with other agencies?

NOAA is engaged in a wide range of estuary habitat restoration efforts. I will

briefly summarize each of the major activities in four categories as well as their coordination with other agencies.

COASTAL WETLANDS PLANNING, PROTECTION AND RESTORATION

ACT

The Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) provides funding and support for the restoration, protection, conservation and enhancement of threatened wetlands in the Louisiana coastal zone. NOAA and the other

29

participating Federal and State agencies have the opportunity to plan and implement large-scale coastal wetlands restoration projects that are significant on a local

and national level. Forging partnerships within the State such as with the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources and local parish governments has proven

critical to the success of the restoration projects. It has resulted in funding for restoration projects totaling over $65 million that are designed to address the rapid

loss of Louisiana’s wetlands. For NOAA and the State of Louisiana, CWPPRA provides the hope of sustaining coastal wetlands that are important to the economic,

recreational and cultural base of the State and region.

As required by CWPPRA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers established a Task

Force composed of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture,

and the State of Louisiana. The Task Force annually prepares and submits to Congress a priority list of wetland restoration projects for Louisiana. The site selection

process is based on the technical merit, cost effectiveness, and predicted wetland

quantity and quality of the proposed project. The Task Force was responsible for the

preparation of a comprehensive coastal Restoration Plan for the State of Louisiana,

which was completed at the end of 1993. The Plan provides much of the basis for

selecting restoration projects.

Each CWPPRA project requires the sponsorship of a Federal agency Task Force

member for implementation. The Act uses a trust fund, which is supported by revenues from tax receipts on small engines and other equipment. Of the amount appropriated from this fund, 70 percent (an amount not to exceed $70 million annually)

is available for wetland restoration projects and associated activities in Louisiana.

While some 70 percent of the funds available under CWPRA are dedicated to restoring Louisiana wetlands, it is important to note that project selection is still based

on merit criteria. CWPPRA mandates a cost-share of 85 percent Federal funds to

15 percent State funds for all projects.

RESTORING ESTUARIES THROUGH TRUSTEESHIP

As a coastal steward and a designated natural resource trustee under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (Superfund),

and the Oil Pollution Act, NOAA protects and restores marine and coastal resources

on behalf of the public. NOAA works at hazardous waste sites with the EPA and

other clean-up agencies to develop remedies to protect coastal resources, and to support habitat and human health. NOAA’s Coastal Resource Coordination program

works at approximately 260 hazardous waste sites a year, about 75 percent of which

affect estuaries. Examples of on-going protection and restoration efforts in estuarine

environments include the Tulalip Landfill in Puget Sound in Washington, the Exxon

Bayway oil spill in the Arthur Kill in New York Harbor, the Apex Houston Oil Spill

in Point Lobos, California, and the Greenhill oil spill in Louisiana.

NOAA’s Damage Assessment and Restoration Program (DARP) restores coastal

and marine resources injured by releases of oil and other hazardous materials. Since

its inception, DARP and its partners have generated more than $240 million in settlement funds to restore injured coastal resources on behalf of the public from those

responsible for the damage.

Through DARP, NOAA is working on a number of damage assessment cases in

estuarine environments including Lake Barre in Louisiana, Commencement Bay in

Washington, Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island, Lavaca Bay in Texas, and Pago

Pago Harbor in American Samoa. By working together with responsible parties and

co-trustees to collect data, conduct assessments and carry out restoration actions,

NOAA is able to restore a clean and healthy environment as quickly and effectively

as possible. Most of these restoration projects are completed through cooperation

with both Federal and state resource trustee agencies. This experience has reinforced the importance of partnerships and the absolute need to document restoration

success for the benefit of future restoration efforts.

NOAA’s trustee activities ensure that resources are protected and restored following releases of oil and other hazardous materials, which results in more productive and diverse estuarine habitat for fish and wildlife, cleaner water, and healthier

ecosystems.

COMMUNITY-BASED RESTORATION PROGRAM

In 1996, the NOAA Fisheries Restoration Center formulated the highly successful

Community-Based Restoration Program (CRP). The CRP achieves habitat restoration by engaging communities in local marine and estuarine habitat restoration

projects. It provides funding and technical expertise to restore coastal habitat and

partners with local constituencies to accomplish meaningful, grass roots projects. In

addition to seed money, the CRP provides support by leveraging expertise and funds

30

from partner organizations. Through these partnerships, the program generates

funding up to tenfold the original Federal investment. Moreover, the program seeks

to promote coastal stewardship and a conservation ethic among coastal communities.

The Administration’s FY2000 Budget Request includes $22.7 million of new funding for the restoration of coastal habitat. Seven million is slated for expanding the

existing CRP. Almost $16 million is identified for implementing habitat restoration

on a regional basis through the creation of a new, regional habitat restoration program.

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVES

Realizing the importance of our Nation’s estuaries, Congress established the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) in 1972 to improve the health

of estuaries and coastal habitats. This Federal/state partnership has proven successful in managing some of our Nation’s relatively pristine estuaries. Through the work

of expert staff, monitoring and education programs and on-site laboratories, NOAA

has developed innovative partnerships with coastal states in connection with 25 Reserves, which have resulted in improved management of nearly one million acres

of estuarine waters and lands.

Although the Reserves represent some of the Nation’s most valuable and relatively undisturbed estuaries, restoration in the Reserves around the Nation is still

an essential activity to protect these biologically diverse areas. To date, many of the

Reserves have undertaken innovative restoration projects. For example, the Chesapeake Bay Reserve in Maryland is working to address erosion and habitat loss.

Areas of the Chesapeake Bay region are severely eroding from impacts of sea level

rise. In an effort to deter erosion, the Reserve is currently evaluating Maryland’s policies concerning the removal of invasive marsh grasses, a traditional restoration

practice. An evaluation and revision of current State policies relating to salt marsh

grass management in certain regions around the Chesapeake Bay may result from

this work. The South Slough Reserve near Coos Bay, Oregon, has conducted restoration activities at two sites that were experiencing significant subsidence and ditch

erosion. By redistributing organic material over the surface of the marsh, the Reserve was able to restore habitat used by salmon and other fish. Indicators of

healthy marsh ecosystems were monitored at all the restored sites. Further work

is being designed to examine different techniques for developing tidal channel habitat for salmon and other fish.

To further improve our Nation’s estuaries, NOAA and the University of New

Hampshire established the Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology (CICEET), which serves as a national center for the development

and application of innovative technology for restoration. CICEET uses the Reserves

as living laboratories and is currently supporting several projects that apply innovative technologies to coastal habitat restoration.

SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

Another example where large scale habitat restoration will be carried out is in

South Florida. In July, 1999, the Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida

Ecosystem Restoration Task Force presented to Congress a $7 billion, 20 year plan

to restore more natural water flows throughout the South Florida ecosystem. Restoring natural flows to the estuaries is the single most important action needed to restore the hundreds of South Florida estuaries that have been severely damaged over

the past century by man-made changes in the quantity, quality and timing of freshwater delivery to the coast. The proposed plan will restore natural flows to almost

all the remaining estuaries in South Florida and significantly advance overall restoration of these valuable habitats. NOAA played a key role in helping shape the

restoration plan for South Florida’s estuaries and other coastal areas. Working with

the State of Florida and Federal agencies, NOAA will also play a key role in monitoring the progress and results of the overall South Florida ecosystem restoration

effort, much of which will focus on coastal estuaries.

• What role does NOAA anticipate for National Estuarine Reserves under H.R.

1775?

NOAA anticipates that the National Estuarine Research Reserves will play an important role in any effort to restore estuaries. The Reserves are located in 20 of 29

biogeographic subregions (including the Great Lakes), serving as representative

areas to conduct research, monitoring and education on a number of topics, including habitat restoration. Restoration projects undertaken in estuaries in these same

regions can use the lessons learned from the Reserves to improve restoration activities and techniques. National Estuarine Research Reserves provide many key opportunities for better estuarine habitat restoration in the Nation.

31

The Reserves provide lessons in ensuring the long-term success of restoration

projects by taking watershed issues into consideration. Through management plans

and other planning mechanisms, restoration is not undertaken in areas where activities upstream would cause degradation to restoration, thereby jeopardizing the

success and viability of the projects.

One of the key opportunities that the Reserve System offers is to learn more

about which restoration techniques are most effective. The ability to use reference

locations within the Reserves as a basis for comparison—not only for Reserve

projects, but also for projects in similar estuaries—will strengthen the science of restoration. The data sharing and the System-wide monitoring that are characteristic

of the Reserves provide increased opportunities for useful comparisons within the

Reserve System and with other estuarine projects.

H.R. 1775 recognizes that the Reserve System can play an important role and

build upon their success from past estuarine habitat restoration projects by allowing

the Council to give priority consideration to restoration needs within the Reserve

System. This priority consideration comes about as part of the guidelines established for the Estuary Habitat Restoration Council in selecting sites. Since each Reserve develops a management plan that identifies restoration priorities, the Reserves qualify for priority consideration under Section 107(d)(1) when determining

restoration projects.

Finally, Reserves are owned and operated by the states in partnership with

NOAA and in cooperation with local communities. This Federal-State partnership

helps to ensure that state preferences for estuarine habitat restoration are properly

coordinated and that these priorities also incorporate local concerns and issues.

Additional comments on H.R. 1775, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1999.

In addition to the questions posed by the Subcommittee, NOAA would like to address several other aspects of the H.R. 1775.

• NOAA agrees that priority should be given to restoration projects in areas that

have area-wide restoration plans currently in place. These plans, which identify

restoration goals, sites and priorities, need to be based on sound science to enable scientists to determine which efforts would most benefit the ecosystem and

fit best within the socioeconomic conditions of the area.

• NOAA supports the priority given to estuarine areas that already have strong

and effective programs to manage point and nonpoint pollution and other activities that can adversely impact estuarine areas. These programs will help to ensure the long-term success of the restoration projects.

• NOAA strongly suggests that the Great Lake states and the island territories

and commonwealths (American Samoa, Commonwealth of Northern Marianas

Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) be eligible for assistance as they have important estuarine habitats that need restoration.

• Consultation with state Coastal Zone Management programs should be mandatory to ensure consistency with state CZM policies, especially during development of state or local restoration strategies and during reviews of locally or privately sponsored project proposals. Early consultation with state CZM programs

will result in a more streamlined process.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, as the Nation’s primary marine science agency, NOAA has the

proven expertise and scientific capability to assist in making sound decisions about

estuarine habitat restoration. The primary lesson we have learned from our restoration activities thus far is the importance of strong science and long-term monitoring

to achieve successful estuarine restoration.

I believe the Subcommittee has taken an important step in addressing these significant issues by holding this hearing today. We applaud the Subcommittee’s leadership and commitment to protecting our Nation’s estuarine and coastal resources

and we look forward to working with you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Ms. Yozell. We appreciate your testimony. We have a vote on. There’s two votes, one 15-minute vote

and one five-minute vote. We won’t be able to finish the panel.

So if you don’t mind, what we’ll do is we’ll go down and vote and

we’ll come right back. So we’ll recess for the vote. That will give

you a little bit of a break and we’ll see you all in about 20 minutes.

[Recess.]

32

Mr. GILCHREST. The Subcommittee will come back to order. We

appreciate your patience.

Mr. Davis, you may begin.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. DAVIS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS, DEPARTMENT OF

THE ARMY

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee. I am Michael Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the

Army for Civil Works.

I am very pleased to be here today to present the Department

of the Army’s views on H.R. 1775.

For over 200 years, the nation has called upon the Army Corps

of Engineers to solve many of its water resources problems. Historically, the Corps has emphasized its flood damage reduction and

navigation missions.

In recent years, however, pursuant to Water Resources Development Acts, we have elevated our environmental restoration and

protection mission to a level equal to our more traditional missions.

The Corps now uses its engineering, project management, real estate and environmental expertise to address environmental restoration and protection problems.

The Corps, in fact, has a powerful toolkit of authorities and programs that can be brought to bear to help solve environmental

problems.

Over the last decade alone, the Corps has helped to restore hundreds of thousands of acres of habitat, benefiting hundreds of fish

and wildlife species. Examples include 28,000 acres of habitat restored along the upper Mississippi River, with 100,000 acres projected by the year 2005; 35,000 acres of flood plain and wetlands

restoration under construction today along the Kissimmee River in

Florida, and hundreds of acres of coastal wetlands restored by beneficially using dredge material, including an 1,100 acre project in

the Chesapeake Bay, known as Poplar Island.

On July 1 of this year, the Army submitted to Congress a comprehensive plan to restore the Everglades. The world’s largest ecosystem restoration project, this plan will help restore over 2.4 million acres of wetlands in the south Florida ecosystem, as well as

improve the health of estuaries and Florida Bay.

Throughout the world, estuarine and coastal areas serve as focal

points for human use and development. These same areas also perform critical functions from an ecosystem perspective. Estuaries

help protect us from flooding, help maintain water quality, and provide habitat and food for a myriad of fish and wildlife species,

many of them threatened or endangered.

These coastal environments generate billions of dollars annually

through such industries as tourism, sport and recreational fisheries. There is, in fact, an urgent need to protect and restore these

fragile ecosystems.

Recognizing the economic, social, cultural and environmental

benefits that they provide, we applaud the co-sponsors of H.R. 1775

for their vision and leadership in this area. In particular, Mr.

Chairman, we applaud you for your leadership.

33

If enacted, H.R. 1775 would enhance the Corps’ ability to restore

and protect estuarine habitat. In this regard, the Army supports

enthusiastically H.R. 1775 and looks forward to working with you

in enacting such legislation.

The goal of restoring one million acres of estuarine habitat by

the year 2010 is consistent with the President’s Clean Water Action

plan goal of restoring 100,000 acres of wetlands annually beginning

in the year 2005.

The proposed national framework and the national estuarine

habitat restoration strategy should help partners identify and integrate existing restoration plans, integrate overlapping plans, and

identify processes to develop new plans, where they are needed.

This framework document could help us maximize incentives for

participation, leverage our very limited Federal resources, and minimize duplication of efforts. We recommend that the use of the existing organizational structure of the Coastal America Partnership

be considered fully. Coastal America has national and regional

teams already in place and many of the members of these teams

will be the very same experts that we would need to consult under

H.R. 1775.

The legislation is consistent with the Coastal Wetlands Preservation, Protection and Restoration Act. This legislation has created a

unique multi Federal and state agency partnership which is working to restore and protect approximately 73,000 acres of coastal

wetlands in Louisiana.

We are pleased to note that important changes that the Army requested at a Senate committee hearing on a companion legislation,

S. 1222, last Congress, had been incorporated into H.R. 1775.

These changes limit Federal assistance for each habitat project to

65 percent, strengthen and clarify the role of the Secretary of the

Army, and allow the restoration council to consider, where appropriate, non-governmental organizations as sponsors for environmental restoration and protection projects.

We do suggest a few additional minor modifications to further

improve H.R. 1775.

For example, we urge the Committee to revise the bill to make

it clear that non-Federal sponsors are responsible for providing all

lands, easements, rights-of-way, dredge material, disposal areas

and locations, as is required for all Army Civil Works water resources projects.

We also believe that the Secretary of the Army should make the

determination regarding the acceptability and evaluation of in-kind

contributions for local cost-sharing.

In addition, like my colleague from NOAA, we believe that you

should consider including the Great Lakes region, which is widely

recognized as a coastal region of the United States, with unique,

but very similar problems and opportunities.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly mention an issue

that you are very familiar with, an issue that seriously threatens

our wetlands resources.

As a result of a court decision that invalidated the Army and

EPA Tulloch rule, tens of thousands of acres of wetlands will be

lost to unregulated drainage and excavation. While we recognize

that this Committee does not have direct jurisdiction over this

34

issue, the Administration feels very strongly that H.R. 1775 and

any bill designed to strengthen the protection of estuarine and

coastal habitats should address what is perhaps the most serious

threat to water quality and coastal and other waters of this country.

Otherwise, the current loophole promises to defeat the laudable

goals of H.R. 1775.

Mr. Chairman, last night at midnight, I returned from a threeday trip in the panhandle of Florida, where I witnessed firsthand

the ditching and drainage of thousands of acres of what was formerly Cypress Swamp. Not only do we have the direct impacts, loss

of habitat, which is very valuable to our fish and wildlife species,

the water draining from this land runs directly into Apalachicola

Bay, which provides 10 percent of the oysters to this country. It’s

a very serious problem.

In conclusion, the Corps has been increasingly involved in recent

years with efforts to protect and restore our estuaries. We have enjoyed very much working with you and your staff on H.R. 1775 and

we look forward to continuing this relationship as we both move towards enacting this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony and I’d be pleased

to answer any questions that you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:]

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. DAVIS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR

CIVIL WORKS

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Michael L. Davis, Deputy

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. I am here today to discuss the

Army Corps of Engineers environmental restoration and protection mission and

present the Department of the Army’s views on H.R. 1775, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1999.

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ENVIRONMENTAL MISSION

For over 200 years the Nation has called upon the Army Corps of Engineers to

solve many of its water resources problems. Historically, the Corps has emphasized

its traditional mission areas of improving our navigation and transportation system,

protecting our local communities from flood damages and other disasters, and maintaining and improving hydropower facilities across the country. The Corps environmental activities have expanded over time with major changes in environmental law

and policy, such as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which requires

each Federal agency to assess fully its actions affecting the environment, and the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (now called the Clean Water Act) in

which the Corps was given a major responsibility for regulating the discharge of

dredged or fill material into all of our Nation’s waters, including wetlands. In recent

years, however, pursuant to the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986

and subsequent WRDAs, the Corps has elevated its environmental restoration and

protection mission to a status equal to its flood damage reduction and navigation

missions. The Corps now uses its engineering, project management, real estate, and

environmental expertise to address environmental restoration and protection opportunities.

The Corps has a powerful toolkit of standing authorities and programs that can

be brought to bear to help solve environmental problems. Over the last decade alone

the Corps has helped to restore hundreds of thousands of acres of habitat of many

types which benefit thousands of fish and wildlife species, Examples include: 28,000

acres of habitat restored for the Upper Mississippi River (98,000 projected by 2005);

hundreds of acres of coastal wetlands restored in Louisiana; 35,000 acres of restored

flood plain under construction as part of the Kissimmee River Restoration Project

in the Florida; and, hundreds of acres of coastal wetlands restored under authorities

which authorize the Corps to beneficially use dredged material for ecosystem restoration.

35

On July 1, the Army submitted to Congress a comprehensive plan to restore the

Everglades, the world’s largest ecosystem restoration project. This plan will help

protect, enhance and restore over 2.4 million acres of wetlands in the south Florida

Ecosystem as well as improve the health of estuaries and Florida Bay.

We are especially proud of our efforts on all coasts in conjunction with the Coastal

America initiative. Some examples of projects where the Corps, using its programs,

led multi-agency, multi-level efforts (Federal, State, local and private) include: restoration of a coastal salt marsh area in the Galilee Bird Sanctuary, Rhode Island;

the initial demonstration area for restoration of tidal wetlands in the Sonoma

Baylands, California; the Sagamore Salt Marsh Restoration, Massachusetts; initiation of actions to restore 1100 acres to provide riparian and submerged habitat at

Poplar Island, Chesapeake Bay, Maryland; and, shoreline stabilization and submerged aquatic vegetation restoration around Tangier Island in the Chesapeake

Bay. Our FY 2000 budget request includes study funds for 12 potential projects directed at protecting or restoring the benefits of estuaries, as well as funding for

many other activities that would be beneficial to the environment in or adjacent to

our Nation’s estuaries.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ESTUARINE AND COASTAL AREAS

Throughout the world, estuarine and coastal areas serve as focal points for human

use and development. These same areas also perform critical functions from an ecosystem perspective, providing habitat and food for myriad fish and wildlife species.

Estuaries are unique in that they serve as a transition zone between inland freshwater systems and uplands, and ocean marine systems. There is an urgent need to

protect and restore these ecosystems recognizing the economic, social, and environmental benefits they provide. In this regard, we would add as a purpose of the bill

the need to promote a greater public appreciation and awareness of the value of our

estuary and coastal resources. As with many environmental issues, future generations depend upon our actions today.

Legislation to expand the authority of the Corps to use its unique skills and experience to restore and protect estuary habitat would add to the Corps environmental

portfolio. Let me assure you that the Department of the Army therefore is prepared

to take a leadership role in reaching the goals of H.R. 1775. Army would approach

implementation of H.R. 1775 in accordance with the policies and procedures which

grew out of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986, subsequent

WRDAs, and long-standing partnership and public involvement practices.

Additionally, Army would explore the possibility of using the existing organization

and structure of the Coastal America partnership to jump-start restoration efforts.

Coastal America has National and Regional Implementation Teams already in place,

and many of the members of these teams would be the very same experts we would

consult with under H.R. 1775.

H.R. 1775

I would now like to focus on the Department of the Army views on H.R. 1775.

The Department of the Army supports efforts to enhance coordination and efficiently

finance environmental restoration and protection projects. The goal of restoring 1

million acres of estuary habitat by the year 2010 is in consonance with the President’s Clean Water Action Plan and the goal of a net increase of 100,000 acres of

wetlands, annually, beginning in the year 2005. We also agree with the philosophical basis for the legislation, that estuaries and coastal areas are being degraded rapidly, and that there is an urgent need to attain self-sustaining, ecologically-based systems that are integrated into surrounding landscapes. The proposed national framework, or national estuary habitat restoration strategy, to be

completed at the end of the first year, should help partners identify and integrate

existing restoration plans, integrate overlapping plans, and identify processes to develop new plans where they are needed. This framework document could help us

maximize incentives for participation, leverage Federal resources, and minimize duplication of efforts. We support the requirement to publish the draft strategy in the

Federal Register for review and comment to enhance public involvement. We believe

that the legislation is consistent with the National Estuary Program (NEP), which

was established to manage and protect aquatic ecosystems in coastal watersheds,

and the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, which uses science to improve management of estuaries. The NEP strives to protect and restore habitat

through consensus and initiatives which are community-based. The legislation also

is consistent with the Coastal Wetlands Preservation Protection and Restoration

Act, a unique multi-Federal and State agency partnership which is working to restore and protect approximately 73,000 acres of coastal wetlands in Louisiana over

a 20-year period.

36

We are pleased to note that important changes that the Army requested at a Senate Committee hearing held on companion legislation, S. 1222, last Congress have

been incorporated into H.R. 1775. These changes limit Federal assistance for each

habitat project to 65 percent, strengthen the role of the Secretary of the Army commensurate with the need for accountability for appropriations received, and allow

the Restoration Council to consider, where appropriate, non-governmental organizations as sponsors for environmental restoration and protection projects. H.R. 1775

is a bill that the Department of the Army could support.

We urge the Committee to revise the bill to make clear that non-Federal sponsors

are responsible for providing all lands, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material

disposal areas and relocations, as is required for Army Civil Works water resources

projects. We also believe the Secretary should make the determination as to the acceptability and valuation of in-kind contributions for local cost sharing, rather than

the proposed Council.

We urge you to consider expanding the geographic scope of the habitat protection

and restoration activities proposed in H.R. 1775 to include the Great Lakes region,

which faces many of the same challenges as coastal regions of the United States.

This coastal region has many ecosystem problems that mirror those of more traditional coastal areas and has, for that reason, been included as a coastal region in

the programs authorized under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as

amended, and in the Administration’s Coastal America Initiative. We believe that

the addition of a regional council representing the Great Lakes region, to include

the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania

and New York, merits serious consideration.

Many environmental restoration techniques and approaches are new, and when

dealing with natural systems, there is a need to test new ideas, learn from successful and not so successful projects, and manage adaptively to adjust to ever-changing

conditions. Environmental restoration efforts for the Everglades, the Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program, and the Coastal Wetlands Preservation Protection and Restoration Act, all acknowledge, to varying degrees, the value of demonstration projects and adaptive assessment approaches.

Adding to H.R. 1775 a demonstration component with a cost share that is consistent

with that applied to habitat projects, and a requirement for non-Federal sponsors

to manage adaptively, would encourage the partners to try out new ideas and learn

more about how to restore and protect estuary and coastal areas.

While we recognize that this Committee does not have direct jurisdiction over this

issue, it is important to note that the Administration feels strongly that H.R. 1775,

and any bill purporting to strengthen protection of estuarine and coastal habitat,

should address the most serious threat to water quality in coastal and other waters

by closing a regulatory gap that threatens the loss of tens of thousands of acres of

wetlands to drainage and excavation each year. This gap, which resulted from a

court decision invalidating the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army

Corps of Engineers ‘‘Tulloch’’ rule requiring permits for drainage and channelization

that affect our Nation’s wetland resources, promises to defeat the laudable goals of

H.R. 1775 unless Congress takes prompt action.

We applaud the co-sponsors of H.R. 1775 for their vision and leadership in this

area. The Army supports H.R. 1775 and looks forward to working with you and your

Senate counterparts in enacting such legislation.

CONCLUSION

The Corps has been increasingly involved in recent years with efforts to protect

and restore the benefits of estuaries and their surrounding habitat. The Department

of the Army is also looking forward to working with the Environmental Protection

Agency, the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Interior, and Transportation,

and the non-Federal participants in the designated coastal regions, to restore and

protect our nation’s estuary habitat. You can be assured that Army Civil Works is

committed to making partnerships work. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or the Subcommittee may

have.

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Mr. Frazer.

STATEMENT OF GARY D. FRAZER. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR

ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Mr. FRAZER. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,

I’m Gary Frazer, Assistant Director for Ecological Services of the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The Service supports H.R. 1775 and commends you, Mr. Chairman, and the co-sponsors for introducing this important legislation.

Estuaries provide vital habitat for a great many of our nation’s

fish, shellfish, migratory birds, and threatened and endangered

species.

The Service has broad authority and extensive involvement in

the protection of these important resources. The Service administers two grant programs that provide funding to states and local

organizations to protect and restore coastal habitat. In addition,

through the national wetlands inventory program, the service creates hard-copy and digital maps of all wetlands and deep water

habitats of the United States, including estuaries.

The Service’s primary program for on-the-ground restoration and

protection of estuaries is our coastal program. Through the coastal

program, Service biologists provide technical and financial assistance in coastal habitat protection and restoration to a host of partners, including other Federal agencies, states and local organizations. Such partnerships facilitate the efficient transfer of funds to

on-the-ground restoration projects.

Over the past five years, the Service’s coastal program partnerships have protected more than 97,000 acres of coastal habitats

through conservation easements and acquisition. We opened almost

2,000 miles of coastal streams for anadromous fish passage, restored more than 28,000 acres of coastal wetlands, restored almost

16,000 acres of coastal upland habitat, and restored 235 miles of

coastal stream habitat.

Such accomplishments have been made possible through extensive coordination with other agencies, initiation of interagency

projects, and active participation with the Environmental Protection Agency and state partners in implementing fish and wildlife

aspects of the national estuary program.

If H.R. 1775 were enacted, the Service anticipates that it would

support coordinated efforts to carry out larger-scale restoration

projects, such as restoration of submerged aquatic vegetation and

oyster reefs in the Chesapeake Bay, removal of exotic plants to restore bird habitat in south Florida, restoration of salt marshes in

coastal Louisiana, restoration of coastal wetlands critical to endangered species in Hawaii.

As the Federal lead for fish and wildlife conservation, the Service

can bring a living resource focus to the council and promote the selection of projects that benefit fish and wildlife resources and their

habitats.

The Service biologists can provide assistance and support to the

regional councils throughout the grant proposal, selection, implementation and monitoring processes outlined in H.R. 1775.

The Service’s coastal program biologists and joint venture coordinators have built trusting relationships with the numerous partVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:18 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\63806 pfrm07 PsN: 63806
45

ners in the field and have the delivery mechanisms in place to

quickly convert grant funds to tangible results.

The Service can also play an important role in project monitoring

and determining whether flora and fauna return successfully to the

restored area, which is the ultimate test of whether restoration has

truly been accomplished.

The Committee has asked if we believe that there is sufficient

funding in the bill for the Service to carry out its activities. Our

coastal program currently is not funded and staffed to adequately

support the councils and provide the increased technical assistance

that would be necessary to meet the needs from partners.

The Service is very sensitive to the issue of more money being

targeted to support the grants program. We want the majority of

funding under the bill to go toward on-the-ground restoration activities. However, we hope the Congress will provide a reasonable

amount of funding to the Federal agencies to enable us to effectively implement this Act.

The Service endorses the bill’s provision to reauthorize the Federal Interagency Chesapeake Bay program, in which the Service

participates as an advisory member via the coastal and fisheries

programs, and we also recommend that H.R. 1775 include the

Great Lakes region by creating a seventh regional council under

section 105 of the bill.

With these comments and suggestions, the Service believes that

H.R. 1775 is a valuable bill that will encourage Federal agencies

to work together and develop partnerships with states and communities for estuary habitat restoration. Much of the necessary planning has been done, but the improved coordination measures and

funding authorizations provided in this legislation will speed the

process of converting such plans to tangible, on-the-ground projects

that benefit fish, wildlife, and the American people.

We strongly support the spirit and intent of H.R. 1775 and look

forward to working with Congress to pass the legislation this year.

Thank you. I’ll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Frazer follows:]

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Frazer.

Mr. Davis, just a quick question on restoring the Everglades and

the Corps of Engineers’ area of responsibility.

How do you restore the Everglades? If you could answer this in

less than five minutes. How do you restore the Everglades, and

then is the Corps of Engineers in any way responsible for—if you

restore the Everglades, that means you have to—I would assume

you have to have some land that will filter out some of the water

that flows through it, straighten out some of the canals or rivers

that were—I mean, take away the straight arrow shot of some of

the rivers, put the curves back in.

How do you go through this process as far as—I would assume

there’s going to be some easements, there has to be some land purchase. There’s got to be a great deal done to the physical infrastructure in order to implement this restoration.

Mr. DAVIS. The answer is yes, if you want a short answer. You

can really sum up how you restore the Everglades with four words.

It’s the quantity, quality, timing and distribution of water. Those

four factors are what it’s all about.

46

We first have to capture some of the 1.7 billion gallons of water

that goes out to the oceans wasted every day, on average.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is there a plan to do that now, a strategy?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes.

Mr. GILCHREST. With land purchase?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes.

Mr. GILCHREST. Between the state, private sector, the Federal

Government and different Federal agencies.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. There’s a very extensive land acquisition program between the Corps, the Department of Interior, the South

Florida Water Management District, county governments, like

Dade County and others, where we’re going to literally be buying

hundreds of thousands of acres of land. In fact, we’ve already

bought tens of thousands of acres of land right now, setting it aside

so——

Mr. GILCHREST. Are these from willing sellers? Was the condemnation process used at all or may it be used in this process?

Mr. DAVIS. For the most part, the land that’s been purchased to

date has been from willing sellers. I would suspect, however, that

before it’s over, there would be some condemnation of land required, but I think for the most part, what’s been purchased to

date has been from willing sellers.

Mr. GILCHREST. How would this bill, H.R. 1775, and you said it

would help enhance the Corps’ ability to restore estuaries. How

would it help restore estuaries, H.R. 1775?

Mr. DAVIS. First and foremost, I think it sends a signal that restoring estuaries would be a national priority, that it’s something

that is important to the nation, that it puts a spotlight on these

important resources.

Secondly, it provides an organizing framework, so we can all be

more efficient. It’s not just the Corps. It will help all of the agencies, the Federal Government, state level, local level, the private

sector, the non-profit organizations, help us coordinate so that we

can very efficiently use our funds.

We’ve seen this happen. It’s funny that it takes perhaps something as simple as some kind of organizational structure to make

things work, but Coastal America is a very good example, where

you have a program that required no additional Federal money, but

it was a framework for Federal agencies, in particular, to sit at the

table and set some priorities and look at the respective authorities

and tools and coordinate, and we’ve put some real important

projects on the ground doing that.

This would let us take another big leap and do it on a much larger scale.

Mr. GILCHREST. You mentioned Coastal America. Is the framework suitable? You had a couple of comments on it. But is the

framework a pretty good reflection of the framework in which

Coastal America now functions?

Mr. DAVIS. It’s a fairly good reflection. I think Coastal America,

like the bill, has a national body, a task force, if you will, that kind

of oversees, from a policy perspective, and then you have regional

implementation teams that are really out on the ground, the agency folks that are getting the work done.

47

So to that extent, it does mirror the national council, regional

council structure that you have in your bill.

Mr. GILCHREST. Could the Coastal America framework be the

framework of H.R. 1775?

Mr. DAVIS. I think perhaps with some modifications, that it could

be, yes. I think, again, what I would suggest would happen is that

the same people that are generally doing the Coastal America

project, they’re going to be the same types of people, at least within

the Federal agencies that will be helping us implement H.R. 1775.

Mr. GILCHREST. You said that H.R. 1775 would create a more efficient system to implement the restoration projects. So the restoration projects that are now underway are hit-and-miss? They seem

to be successful in Florida, with the massive effort there. They

seem to be somewhat successful other places.

But on a national level, the framework, however it mirrors

Coastal America or however this council system is structured,

would provide a more efficient flow of information, dollars, implementation.

Mr. DAVIS. I think it will. I think that we have witnessed a lot

of successful coastal restoration around the country currently and

I would expect that would continue.

But what this bill could do is it pulls us together and it forces

us to set priorities, perhaps looking at watersheds, stepping back

from a project by project approach, looking at where we need to

target our resources across Federal agencies, state agencies and

other levels of government.

We do that at times now, but there’s no real mandate to do that

and I think this would help create that.

Mr. GILCHREST. I see. I have a couple more questions, but I’m

going to yield right now to the gentleman from American Samoa.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly want

to thank the members of the panel for their testimony. I do have

a couple of questions.

I note with interest the proposed bill—perhaps many Americans

don’t realize it, but over 50 percent of our nation’s population live

in the coastal areas of our country; 75 percent of the commercial

fishing industry is entirely dependent on these estuaries; and, 80

to 90 percent of the recreational fishing industry is also dependent

on these very important areas.

In all the years that I’ve been in the Committee hearings, Mr.

Chairman, I have never seen the Administration, three different

Federal agencies, all agreeing to a bill within a three month period

of when it was introduced. I’ve never heard of this ever happening,

Mr. Chairman, and I certainly want to commend you for this proposed legislation, which I think is not only very important, but I

certainly hope that we will move it with due speed.

I’m sure the Chairman and myself, we’re very sensitive to the

idea of duplication, the idea of being overly bureaucratic about any

given issue in the problems that we deal with in the Federal Government.

So I suppose the bill is being introduced and now we have the

Federal agencies coming to testify and say whether or not you already have the capabilities of handling this problem that we’re addressing.

48

I wanted to ask Ms. Yozell. I had mentioned earlier in my statement that when you talk about estuaries, you’re talking about a global total dollar value of about $4 trillion involved. Within our

own country, what is it, $56,000 per acre, approximately, in terms

of the dollar.

About how many acres are we looking at nationwide in our own

country? Do we have any statistics on that?

Ms. YOZELL. We do. In fact, I was just looking at a report last

night that EPA puts out, through their monitoring program. They

have assessed the quality of about 72 percent of our estuaries,

about 30,000 square miles, and they found that 38 percent are very

impaired. If you use the ratio for the remaining percent to that

would translate into about 11 million acres.

So this bill seeks to address 10 percent, which is a great start

when you think of how many really there are.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. This is just for starters, 11 million acres,

that’s just for starters.

Ms. YOZELL. The 11 million acres is what we estimate, and I’ll

have to say it’s very rough. EPA has determined that roughly about

11 million acres are impaired, and the legislation before us aims

to start out with addressing a million. So that’s roughly about 10

percent, or 11 percent.

And we think that is a great start, because we know that it is

going to be difficult by its very nature.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You had also indicated earlier, Ms. Yozell,

that you spoke very highly of the Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection and Restoration Act program that is now ongoing in Louisiana. Can you elaborate on that? What are some of the features

that perhaps we can take from Louisiana and incorporate on a nationwide basis, what the bill proposes?

Ms. YOZELL. Absolutely. And I will note that in the Senate side,

we call it the Breaux Act, but on the House side, we call it the

CWPPRA.

It’s a fantastic process that we’ve developed there and I think the

best part about it is the collaboration. It’s collaborative amongst all

of the Federal agencies you see here at the table, as well as others—the state, local partners—and it’s really an on-the-ground effort.

For example, if one agency has a particular expertise in an area

that’s being restored, they sort of run that project. If another agency has expertise in another area, they do the same. So EPA will

run a project, the Corps will run a project, or NOAA will run a

project for expamle.

But overall, I think it’s the collaborative nature, it’s the on-theground nature, and most of the money goes to on-the-ground

projects. I think it’s about 10 percent that goes for administration.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. What I’m most appreciative of is that we’re

seeing three Federal agencies all being very collaborative and being

very positive in their approaches and saying let’s solve the problem.

I’ve heard time and time in hearings the agencies fighting among

themselves and then expecting us to solve the problem. Again, I

wanted to ask Ms. Yozell, can you provide an example of where

there are any current existing programs that are working together

49

in a way that perhaps——giving us some signals on how we can

approach and develop this legislation, that could be most helpful.

Ms. YOZELL. Sure. I think Michael pointed to one that’s very successful, which is the South Florida restoration effort. I sit on the

task force and NOAA really offers our expertise in monitoring and

the scientific issues as we replum the overall Everglades, and Interior has their expertise. So that’s one that does work very well.

I think Michael also hit upon the Coastal America program,

where we are all together, working together.

This is very, very beneficial to us to have us all sort of thrown

together to develop a plan together, because we’re all so busy and

we have so many programs that are working to address estuary

and wetland restoration, but we’re not always certain what the

other is doing. And I think bringing us together and developing a

plan would be very effective.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Davis, there is a view among some circles that the Corps of Engineers, they tend to go out there and

dredge things, build bridges, and make things dirty.

How could the Corps of Engineers ever be considered as an environmentalist, if your job is to go out there and destroy the reefs

and make landfills and build airports and do all these kind of good

things that supposedly destroy the estuaries, rather than restore

them?

Mr. DAVIS. That’s an interesting question. When I look at what

the Corps is all about, I see something different. First of all, if you

ask the people what the Corps is all about, they would say dredging and flood control and environmental destruction. I would submit to you that it’s different. I submit to you what the Corps is

about is solving problems. For over 200 years, this nation has

called on its Army Corps of Engineers to solve problems and society

asked the Corps of Engineers, in response to a couple of devastating hurricanes in 1947, to go down and drain the south Florida Everglades. The State of Florida, and the Congressional leadership, asked the Corps to go down there and do a project.

We did it and, fortunately, we were very successful. We drained

the Everglades. And we’ve been asked all over the country to do

those things. Today I think society and the Congress and certainly

this Administration is asking the Corps of Engineers to do other

things.

And I guess the biggest test of whether we’re serious about that

is where we’re putting our money. If you look at 1992, about 2 percent of the Corps’ Civil Works budget, which is typically about $4

billion a year, about 2 percent of that budget went to environmental restoration and protection.

In the President’s fiscal year 2000 request, about 25 percent of

the Corps’ budget goes to environmental restoration and protection.

So we are very serious today and you are absolutely right, we do

have a little bit of a problem with our image and we’re trying to

rehabilitate that and show people we are very serious about this

part of our mission.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Let’s talk about the Everglades. I’ve been to

the Everglades and, interestingly enough, I think the Corps of Engineers was—you built how many miles long ditches?

Mr. DAVIS. Hundreds of miles.

50

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Hundreds of miles ditches and as a result,

we’re having a serious problem with the Miccosukee tribe, and the

people there owned this whole area before westerners ever came to

Florida, and we’re having that very serious problem. How do you

help this tribe that was there before we came?

Mr. DAVIS. We are working very closely not only with the

Nukasukis, but the Seminole tribe, and they are represented on

this task force that Sally and I serve on and they have an equal

role to play in terms of helping us shape the overall restoration

plan.

I can assure you that the Nukasuki and Seminole issues are in

the front of our minds every time we make decisions about how to

replum the water, how to move the water, and we’re looking at

their interests fully.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You notice that in the bill, there’s authorization of $220 million for a five-year period. Do you consider that a

sufficient and adequate amount to kind of get the program going,

if this bill is enacted?

Mr. DAVIS. I think it’s a very good start. There’s a lot of very

good work, with that amount of money. Many of the projects that

we’re talking about are not necessarily all that expensive. It involves things like changing culverts, getting tidal flow back into

areas. So some of the things are not that expensive.

Others will be much larger projects and will take a lot more

money, but I think that amount of money and it’s cost-shared, the

way the bill lays out, will be a very good start for us.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. About what percentage of the entire budget

of the Corps of Engineers is committed towards estuary considerations?

Mr. DAVIS. Of that 25 percent that goes to the environment, I

couldn’t tell you how much of that goes to estuarine and restoration, but I can get that number for you, for the record. It’s a fairly

large amount. We’ve got a lot of coastal projects going on right

now., such as Sonoma Bay-lands in California. We’ve just completed a restoration project that Senator Chafee was involved in in

Rhode Island.

So we’ve got dozens of these things around the country going on

right now. So it’s a fairly large amount of money. ——————

Of the FY 2000 appropriated funds for environmental activities, over $33 million

is committed to estuary related projects. Most of these are still in the planning and

design stages.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up, but

is all right if I ask another question? You’re the boss. Thank you,

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Frazer, it’s my understanding that a report was released last

year that identified over 65 separate programs scattered over seven

different Federal agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service,

providing funding for estuary and coastal wetlands restoration.

Can you give us your sense of evaluation how that would fit into

the provisions of H.R. 1775?

Mr. FRAZER. I think one of the strengths of H.R. 1775 is its national strategy to identify the various programs out there, the

needs, and to put them into a coordinated framework so that the

51

pieces can become greater, when they become pulled together. You,

in fact, have greater capability than individual parts could do in

terms of advancing estuary restoration independently.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has got several programs that we

administer. Many of our efforts, particularly through our coastal

program, seek to work to coordinate the various restoration programs and to bring a living resource focus to those already. This

bill would provide a framework, as well as additional dollars, to be

able to advance large-scale and effective restoration projects.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. With the assistance of our three most valued Federal agency representatives here before us, could you give

us an idea that perhaps the Administration will be helpful in moving this legislation as expeditiously as possible? We would appreciate if you would let us know as soon as possible areas that you

think that could be strengthened, areas that you think of the bill

that we could work on, so that we can get this thing moving; do

you foresee any problems ahead, as far as the Administration is

concerned, on this?

Mr. Chairman, I think you’ve got a winner here. Thank you very

much.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega. I know there is

another panel. I just have a couple of very short questions. I know

Ms. Woolsey is here in the back waiting to introduce somebody.

Ms. Yozell, could you tell us, in as a specific way as you can, how

you think H.R. 1775 could help with an oyster restoration program,

which I’m assuming now can be a part of this habitat restoration

idea, how H.R. 1775 would help NMFS pool resources to build oyster reefs in the Chesapeake Bay?

Ms. YOZELL. Absolutely. As you pointed out earlier, 1 percent,

that’s pretty dismal when you think of what used to exist with regard to oyster sites throughout the bay. So there’s a lot of work

that can be done.

And I know that recently, in June, the Chesapeake Bay oyster

restoration report came out and really highlighted three areas that

are essential if we’re going to get oyster restoration throughout the

bay.

It talks about how we need three-dimensional reef habitat and

that we need to create reef sanctuaries for the brood stock, and

that we have to stop the practice of moving diseased oyster around

the bay.

So those are the issues that have been identified. Now, you know

that NOAA doesn’t spend a lot of money or nowhere near the

amount of money that we need to take on these kinds of issues and

address it. I think we have $450,000 in an oyster bed restoration

program and we do some research through Sea Grant.

So by having these funds, we can collaboratively, one, work with

other agencies; and two, work with the Chesapeake Bay program,

the states and the locals, and really benefit in doing strong and important restoration. Those three issues I outlined, they do take

money, they do take time, and they take human resources, and this

will enable us to do exactly that, and I think it’s an excellent, excellent opportunity for us to help bring the oysters back to the bay.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. Do you have an opinion on whether

the money that would go through the councils and the agencies

52

that would implement these policies would be grant dollars or, like

the quorum, I would ask Mike the same question, what is the difference between a grant program and a project program? Do you

have an opinion on that?

Ms. YOZELL. Basically, the difference is, as we have under

CWPPRA, an agency runs the project and so that’s a program and

that has worked very effectively. Under the grants program, it’s a

particular grant to an entity and there’s criteria, but we may not

be as involved or be able to offer our expertise and experiences.

I believe we’ve been leaning towards—and I’ll let Michael answer

that from the Corps’ point of view, since he’ll be sort of running the

structure and they have their own issues there—I believe we’re

leaning towards a program setup through the Corps mechanism.

Mr. GILCHREST. Which would then be more project-oriented as

opposed to grant-oriented.

Ms. YOZELL. Correct.

Mr. GILCHREST. Do you think there could be some formula where

there could be a mix in the same legislation, a mix of projects and

grants?

Ms. YOZELL. Yes. For example, let me use the example of our

community-based restoration program. We provide grants, small

grants, and, as Michael pointed out, it can be anything from just

moving a culvert or a drain, and those are small projects and

they’re grants to communities, and I think they work very well.

So it would be good if we could somehow accommodate both

grants and programs.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mike, any comment?

Mr. DAVIS. I think for the most part, the Army would prefer that

it’s a project-oriented program and there are several reasons. The

science of ecosystem restoration is still relatively new and we’re

learning a lot of things as each project that we put on the ground,

we’re learning. We’re also learning that things that look good on

paper often don’t work out that way on the ground. There are some

unintended consequences, sometimes negative, sometimes positive.

So I would caution that we need to make sure that we have the

right amount of analysis done before we just march off and start

building something or doing something. So for the most part, I

think that we need the analytical framework that we use to put

projects on the ground and have the Federal Government, including the Corps and the other agencies, provide that technical type

of review.

It may be possible, however, to build on your suggestion, there

may be some threshold below which you could have a kind of a

grant type of program for very, very small problems, where it was

just obvious to everybody that that was the right thing to do and

the results were going to be very positive to the environment.

But generally, I think that we ought to be very careful and make

sure that we maintain kind of the Federal analysis that we think

is needed to make sure that we end up with the right result.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. Mr. Frazer, do you have a comment

on that?

Mr. FRAZER. Well, restoration and coastal zone is technically difficult. It poses special challenges. Expertise in those sorts of restoration projects is very important to ensure success.

53

The Federal Government, Federal agencies certainly do have and

have accumulated a great deal of expertise and some of the benefits

of Federal agencies working together and managing projects are

demonstrated through the Coastal America program.

But there is also a tremendous interest and desire for states and

local governments to have the resources and assistance in carrying

out their restoration programs.

So a melding of the two would have some great benefit. The diversity of approaches can provide a greater coverage than any one

single approach.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. If I may, this is the last question.

Mr. Frazer, could you tell us, briefly, how do you restore an estuary

and how do you keep it restored? Briefly.

Mr. FRAZER. Circumstances differ wherever you go, but basically

the key to restoration is to understand what changes have occurred

to the natural processes that are key to sustaining the function and

productivity of an estuarine system. Sometimes it’s modification of

tidal flow.

An estuary really is an area in which salt water and fresh waters

mix and the changes to the hydrology of an estuary can have dramatic effects on living systems.

Sometimes the changes have to do with development in adjacent

uplands and pollutant inputs into the estuarine system. Sometimes

it’s related to invasion of exotic species.

So there’s any number of threats of changes that occur to an estuary and the restoration is dependent upon being able to identify

those threats and putting in place effective strategies and monitoring to ensure then that your restoration activities are, in fact,

effective.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. Each of you has mentioned the Great Lakes. We won’t go into that at this point, but I’m

sure we’ll be in contact with you to further discuss that issue. We

may have to change the timing of the bill, though, if we include or

say ‘‘and the Great Lakes, restore estuary habitat and fresh water

of the Great Lakes,’’ but those are considerations that we’ll take

under advisement and do our best.

We certainly appreciate all your testimony here this morning. It

has been extremely helpful. Thank you very much.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I would like unanimous consent to allow our friend and good colleague, the gentlelady from

California, to invite her to sit with us on the dais. I’d like to also

ask unanimous consent that she be permitted to introduce our dear

friend that is going to be also testifying at our Committee hearing

this afternoon.

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection. I would also like to ask unanimous consent that Chairman Saxton’s statement be included in the

record. Hearing no objection, that will be done.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE

OF NEW JERSEY

Today we will hear testimony from our distinguished witnesses regarding Congressman Wayne Gilchrest’s (MD 1st) bill, H.R. 1775, to catalyze estuary restoration

and coordinate Federal estuarine activities. This is an excellent bill, and this action

is long overdue from the Federal Government. I am a cosponsor of this measure,

54

and I commend Mr. Gilchrest for his leadership on this issue. I remain committed

to attacking the problems facing this nation’s estuaries and to restoring degraded

coastal habitat.

Over a decade ago, Congress created the National Estuary Program to address serious environmental problems in estuaries of national significance. These problems

include polluted runoff, habitat loss, development pressure, and harmful algal

blooms. Unfortunately, despite a significant amount of planning, very little effort

has been made to implement comprehensive conservation and management plans or

to actively restore the most seriously degraded estuarine areas. I am pleased that

today we are taking positive steps to improve this unacceptable situation.

H.R. 1775 will, for the first time, coordinate Federal agencies with the responsibility for estuary management. This is an idea whose time is long overdue. H.R.

1775 also provides funding to implement estuary management plans, undertake

habitat restoration activities, and prevent further losses. H.R. 1775 requires a nonFederal partner to provide matching funds for estuary restoration projects. I am a

strong supporter of requiring local or state matching funds for these types of activities. Building local support and including the citizens who live and work near these

estuaries strengthens the program and will result in long-term benefits for the natural resources that are dependent on these areas.

I fully support Mr. Gilchrest’s bill as well as other efforts to address problems in

the coastal zone. Not only am I a cosponsor of H.R. 1775, but I have introduced a

companion bill, H.R. 1237, that would allow the Environmental Protection Agency

to use funds appropriated for the National Estuary Program to be used, for the first

time, to implement comprehensive conservation and management plans. I will also

continue to urge the reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act. H.R.

2669, the Coastal Community Conservation Act, which this Subcommittee approved

on August 5, 1999, includes provisions for increasing local involvement in coastal

zone management and it reauthorizes the National Estuarine Reserve System. Together with H.R. 1775, these measures will have a positive impact on our coastal

resources well into the 21st century.

55

56

57

58

59

60

Mr. GILCHREST. Our first, Richard Ribb, of Rhode Island, Narragansett Bay, is here with us this afternoon; Mike Hirshfield, from

the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, thank you so much for coming.

Richard and Mike, we appreciate all the work you’ve done in your

particular areas to restore those estuaries. And now I will yield to

you.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am really honored

and I thank you very much for letting me come here today to introduce somebody that is very important to me and to my district, to

the State of California, and to the United States of America and

our environmental protection.

But I also want to thank you because I am here to support H.R.

1775, and I want you to know that and I am on your bill and I

know that it, too, is going to be very important for this nation.

Now, why is Grant Davis so important to me?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. He’s handsome.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Yes, he is handsome, but that’s not why. Grant is

either to blame or to be given credit, a great deal of it, for my running for Congress in the first place. So it depends on where you are

on that, that you’ll appreciate my appreciation for Grant.

Mr. GILCHREST. So Grant didn’t support the Republican candidate.

Mr. DAVIS. Sorry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Great American, great American.

Ms. WOOLSEY. And then once I was elected, Grant came onto my

staff, for over five years, and he was an extremely valuable member of my district staff, providing the essential help and information that our offices required and our district required regarding

environmental issues.

Now he has gone on to be the Executive Director of the Bay Institute and in that position, it is a major step up, he is now helping

the State of California, the entire Bay Area within the State of

California, and it has direct results to what is going on in the

United States of America regarding bay lands and estuaries and

wetlands.

And as I said, Mr. Chairman, I also want to support your Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act, because I see this as legislation that is an invaluable step toward the conservation of our

estuaries and our nation’s most prized resources.

I am certain that today Grant Davis’ testimony will add credibility to H.R. 1775 and the great importance of this issue.

So thank you again for letting me do this, so I can personally let

this young man know how valuable he is to all of us in my district.

Thank you very much.

Mr. GILCHREST. We thank the gentlelady from California. At this

point, I guess we look forward to your testimony, gentlemen, and

we can start with Mr. Ribb.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD RIBB, DIRECTOR, NARRAGANSETT

BAY ESTUARY PROGRAM, RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Mr. RIBB. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my

name is Richard Ribb. I’m the Director of the Narragansett Bay

National Estuary Program in Rhode Island, and I am presenting

61

testimony regarding H.R. 1775 on behalf of the Association of National Estuary Programs, or ANEP, for short.

We appreciate the opportunity to present our views on the protection and restoration of our nation’s estuaries and on the linkage

between the NEPs and this bill.

ANEP is a non-profit organization dedicated to building a common vision for the protection and restoration of the nation’s bays

and estuaries. Members of ANEP include representatives of industry, agriculture, fisheries, tourism, trade, and citizen groups, who

volunteer their time to develop and implement the estuary management plans created under the National Estuary Program.

We appreciate that the Subcommittee is turning its attention to

the state of critical habitat in our estuaries through the introduction of this bill. The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act,

introduced by Mr. Gilchrest, clearly recognizes the importance of

estuarine habitat for the ecological and economic health of the nation.

ANEP strongly supports H.R. 1775. Those of us work with citizens and municipalities across the nation on coastal habitat restoration projects see the funding and support provided by this bill

as a vital resource in meeting community goals for habitat restoration.

In passing this bill, Congress would make the Federal Government a real partner with the states in restoring these resources.

In terms of local input, ANEP supports a regional council composition that is inclusive and broad-based, bringing many perspectives

into decision-making, while building wide support for its actions.

You’ve heard from the Federal agency representives here on how

this bill would impact their agencies. I’d like to speak a little to the

other side of the coin, about how the National Estuary Programs

represent a community-based approach to organizing and meeting

local habitat restoration needs and how the program acts as a conduit between Federal, state and local restoration initiatives.

ANEP believes that the goals of this bill and the work that the

estuary programs are doing are strongly linked, and I will briefly

explain how.

First of all, the bill recognizes that estuary habitat restoration

cannot take place in a vacuum. Restoration projects can be affected

by other factors, like land use impacts, degraded water quality and

invasive species, changes in water salinity. These are all issues

that the NEP, with its broad-based, comprehensive, water-based

approach are investigating and acting on.

This approach ensure that interrelated issues are considered and

addressed in undertaking restoration projects.

Several of the purposes of the bill directly relate to the activities

and goals of the national estuary program. These purposes include

creating strategies to meet national and regional goals for habitat

restoration. The bill will rely on existing plans or strategies for restoration, as well as estuary-specific scientific data as the foundation for effective projects.

The NEPs have taken a lead role in these areas. Most of their

stakeholder-driven estuary management plans include specific

science-based strategies for habitat restoration and the NEPs have

completed dozens of restoration projects of many different types,

62

and I would ask you to refer, for more information on that, to the

written testimony, where there’s a list of a number of different restoration project types conducted by NEPs.

Another purpose in the bill is fostering communication and establishing effective partnerships between restoration programs,

and the NEPs are built on local and regional partnerships for action and are often a technical and logistical support system for

these partnerships. By bringing together Federal, state and local,

as well as private sector stakeholders, pooling resources and targeting priority problems, the Estuary Program has enhanced the

capacity of these partnerships to work together.

A further purpose in the bill seeks to ensure that restoration

projects are based on sound science and that there’s increased capacity for estuary habitat research and monitoring. The NEPs undertake detailed studies in each of their estuaries, creating a scientific basis for these plans and actions. These characterizations include baseline habitat data, developed by following well-designed

criteria and protocols, setting standards, and providing direction

for further monitoring programs.

The programs have pioneered innovative techniques, using new

tools, like computer mapping and remote sensing technology, to

analyze habitat and, with their partners, to prioritize projects.

In summary, the NEPs have been providing the scientific and

management tools to support effective habitat restoration. They

have collaboratively developed strategies and priorities for projects.

They have been a communication and technical assistance resource

for habitat restoration at the state and community level. They have

been extremely effective at leveraging local resources to match Federal grants. For every Clean Water Act dollar the NEPs receive,

they leverage at least two other dollars in state, local and other

funding.

And the programs have the ability to present the council established by this bill with timely, prioritized restoration projects, with

wide support from local stakeholders.

These are the primary ways in which this program supports the

goals of this bill. We believe that, with continued Federal support,

the NEPs can be a strong partner in implementing this Act, forming a chain of action stretching from the local watersheds up to the

Federal level, that will result in the kind of measurable environmental progress that we are all working to achieve.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, for

the opportunity to express our endorsement of H.R. 1775 and to

share our views on the connection between the National Estuary

Program and this important bill.

The association stands ready to assist the Subcommittee in any

way as it works on this important bill.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ribb follows:]

STATEMENT OF RICHARD C. RIBB, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL

ESTUARY PROGRAMS

On behalf of the Association of National Estuary Programs (ANEP), we appreciate

the opportunity to submit to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Conservation, Wildlife

and Oceans our views on the protection and restoration of the Nation’s estuaries

and on the strong linkage we see between the National Estuary Program (NEP) and

the goals and process described in H.R. 1775. The Association of National Estuary

63

Programs is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting stewardship and a

common vision for the preservation of the nation’s bays and estuaries. Our members

include representatives of industry, agriculture, fisheries, tourism, and the greater

business community who volunteer their time to develop and implement comprehensive management plans for a network of nationally significant estuaries.

We are pleased that this Subcommittee is turning its attention to the state of critical habitat in the Nation’s estuaries, through the introduction of the bill being discussed today. Loss and degradation of estuary habitat has been identified as a priority problem in the 28 estuaries within the NEP—estuaries designated by Congress

as of national significance. H.R. 1775, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership

Act of 1999, introduced by Mr. Gilchrest of Maryland, clearly recognizes the critical

importance of estuarine habitat to the ecological and economic health of our Nation

and to the quality of life of our citizens. This bill creates a national program with

a strong regional component to fund estuary habitat restoration efforts in partnership with the States. non-governmental organizations and local communities.

The Association of National Estuary Programs strongly endorses H.R. 1775. Those

of us who work every day with citizen groups and municipalities across the nation

on habitat restoration projects would find the Federal funding and support for this

issue that this bill would provide a critical resource in achieving restoration goals

for our estuaries. In setting goals, committing funding, and including regional input

to the process defined in this bill, Congress would make the Federal Government

a real partner with the States in restoning the nation’s estuarine resources.

H.R. 1775 and the National Estuary Program: A Complementary Approach

to Estuary Restoration and Management

• H.R. 1775 lists the following among the purposes of the bill:

•To develop strategies to obtain national and regional objectives for estuary

habitat restoration;

•To foster communication between Federal, state and community estuary habitat restoration programs;

•To establish effective estuary habitat restoration partnerships among public

agencies at all levels of government and between public and private sectors;

•To develop and enhance monitoring and research capabilities to ensure that

estuary habitat restoration efforts are based on sound scientific understanding.

This testimony will illustrate how the National Estuary Program is already fulfilling those purposes in estuaries across the nation and how this national program

will be strongly connected to and support the goals of the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act.

The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act focuses on restoring degraded

habitat, taking a targeted approach that focuses specifically on habitat restoration

project selection and funding. However, the bill does recognize that successful estuary habitat restoration cannot take place in a vacuum. Even a painstakingly

planned habitat restoration project can be undermined by other factors like serious

water quality problems, land use impacts, changes in freshwater flows or invasive

species. While H.R. 1775’s mission is urgently needed, it is not broad enough to address the entire spectrum of pressures on our estuaries that can impact habitat restoration. Section 107 (d) of H.R. 1775 specifically assigns high priority to projects

where there is ‘‘a program within the watershed of the estuary habitat restoration

project that addresses sources of pollution and other activities that otherwise would

re-impair the restored habitat’’ and it requires that estuary habitat restoration efforts funded under the bill be consistent with estuary management plans, referring

to the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans created under the NEP.

These issues and activities mentioned are ones that the NEPs are investigating and

acting on, building collaborative solutions for estuary problems.

The NEP is broad-based, taking a comprehensive approach to addressing the wide

range of problems facing the Nation’s estuaries—preventing habitat degradation

and loss of recreational and commercial fisheries, protecting and Improving water

quality, pioneering watershed management techniques, controlling, sewage outfalls

and septic system impacts, mitigating impacts from increasing coastal land development, developing strategies to deal with invasive species and harmful algal

blooms—the list goes on and reflects the inter-related nature of these. Problems and

the community-based nature of the NEP approach. The watershed-based perspective

of the NEPs ensures that interrelated issues are considered and addressed in undertaking restoration projects.

The process established by H.R. 1775 would rely on existing plans or strategies

for habitat restoration in the nation’s estuaries, as well as on estuary-specific scientific habitat data as a foundation for effective restoration projects. The strength

of the NEPs is comprehensive planning for restoration in a watershed context,

64

whereas the focus of H.R. 7755 is to provide Federal funding for local organizations

to undertake specific restoration projects. The NEPs have taken a lead role in this

type of planning. For example, the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program convened

nearly 100 coastal stakeholders for a daylong workshop on habitat restoration, resulting in a set of clear recommendations for research, planning, management and

legislation to further restoration goals. The NBEP also used the input of these participants to develop a comprehensive map and inventory of coastal restoration sites,

identifying existing, planned and proposed projcts. Since 1994, the NBEP has been

developing the scienfific data and methodology necessary for a statewide coastal

habitat restoration plan—a plan with tremendous local support that now nears completion. The program is also conducting field-based research projects to develop detailed scientific criteria for evaluating estuary habitat restoration project success,

aiding the development of monitoring protocols. The actions of this particular NEP

reflect the work of NEPs across the nation in addressing this critical issue. As longrange planning and organizing entities, the NEPs have, through a consensus-based

process, worked out the appropriate courses of action that will lead to coordinated

and collaborative coastal habitat restoration actions.

The NEPs have the ability to present the Council established by H.R. 1775 With

timely, prioritized projects with support from local stakeholders. Over the last decade, NEPs have conducted a wide variety of restoration projects and have plans for

many more; refer to the attached NEP Habitat Restoration Project List. The programs provide an organizational framework to coordinate local restoration actions,

state and Federal programs and the functions of the Council. In many cases, planning and logistical details have been worked out in advance; funding is the last necessary component. The programs have been working on this process for several

years; H.R. 1775 would be a logical and well-timed receptor of the results of this

work.

We believe that the passage of H.R. 1775 will allow the NEPs to move forward

on the habitat restoration goals set forth in their community-based estuary management plans while providing the Regional Councils with a strong connection to local

habitat restoration needs in our estuaries. The bill identifies a potential important

role for the NEPs as non-voting members of Regional Councils. These programs can

be an important partner and resource to the Regional Councils, providing organizational and technical advice and support. The abilities of the NEPs matched with the

process and funding set up by H.R. 1775 will form a chain of action stretching from

local watersheds to the Federal level that will result in the kind of measurable environmental progress that we are all working to achieve.

It is also clear that it will be a challenging task for States to consistently meet

the 35 percent match requirement created in the bill. It will require a well-developed ability to secure non-Federal match and careful coordination of matching

funds. This ability to leverage funds and resources is a hallmark of the NEPs. In

fact, a recent report from the NEPs shows that, based on a conservative analysis,

for every Clean Water Act Section 320 dollar invested, the NEPs leverage

at least 2 dollars from state, local, foundation and other funding sources

and services. There are few Federal programs that can show this kind of return

on investment. This also reflects the level of State and local commitment to the

NEPs as well as recognition that these programs are an effective catalyst for action

in our nation’s estuaries. The NEPs will no doubt play a critical role in planning

for and securing local match for the funding provided by H.R. 1775.

ANEP has a specific comment regarding the language in H.R. 1775. We support

a change that where in the bill ‘‘estuary management plans’’ are referred to, the

CCMPs created under the NEP are specifically identified as such plans.

The National Estuary Program: Securing a Sound Future for the Nation’s

Estuaries

It is well established that estuaries are the biologically essential, economically

priceless, but fragile connections between the continent and the oceans. The entire

nation is served by coastal estuaries in numerous ways, such as commercial and recreational fishing, transportation, defense, boating, research and learning, and providing irreplaceable wildlife and fisheries habitat. The estuaries designated by Congress to be part of the NEP now include 42 percent of the continental United States

shoreline and are among the most productive in the Nation. Economically, these estuaries of national significance produce over $7 billion in revenue from commercial

and recreational fishing and related marine industries; tourism and recreation in

these estuaries are valued at over $16 billion annually. Through the National Estuary Program, citizens, municipalities, environmental groups and interested business

and industry organizations come together with State and Federal governments to

65

reach agreement on long-term management plans that seek to guarantee the economic and biological productivity of the nation’s estuaries into the future.

The National Estuary Program has evolved into a leader in coastal watershed protection and restoration over the last decade and a half Each NEP serves as the primary technical and coordination support structure (and frequently the initiator) for

a wide range of partnerships and actions to conserve and restore the estuary. Starting with four pilot programs in 1985, the success of and need for the program has

led to the current status—28 estuaries in the national program of which 10 are in

the developmental stage and 18 are in the implementation stage of their individual

Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMP). Local citizens guide

the development and implementation of their plans, and, using the abilities of their

local NEPs, work to leverage Federal and state dollars with contributions from local

governments and the private sector.

The National Estuary Program is clearly not the ‘‘command-and-control’’ type of

Federal program. Rather, it is a program where local governments, citizens and the

private sector come together and agree on how to manage the Nation’s estuaries and

on how to craft local solutions to common coastal problems. Only with the full support of the local sector is the proposed CCMP submitted to the state governors and

the EPA Administrator for approval. Thus, it is the states, in close coordination

with the local stakeholders and the Federal Government, that create and implement

new, non-adversarial and cost-effective estuary management plans, in contrast to

the traditional, top-down approach to environmental protection, largely divorced

from local

The NEP has a history of valuing community involvement and building support

for initiatives. Citizens see these programs (and their staffs) as a part of a governmental structure that uses resources efficiently, is responsive to their needs, and is

effective in solving problems and raising issues and awareness. NEPs have been

particularly effective in identifying and funneling relevant resources (grants, technical assistance, etc.) to states, communities and citizen groups. The National Estuary Program is one of a handful of Federal non-regulatory programs that truly attempt to address local concerns. This effective national network of programs shares

its experiences and lessons learned with each other and with other watershed and

governmental organizations. It has been and, with continued support at the Federal

level, will continue to be a national resource for the protection and improvement of

the nation’s estuaries.

We thank the Subcommittee for providing us the opportunity to express our support for H.R. 1775 and to share our views on the connection between the National

Estuary Program and this bill. The Association of National Estuary Programs

stands ready to assist the Subcommittee as it works to pass this vital legislation.

National Estuary Program Habitat Restoration Project List

Listed below are examples of NEP estuary habitat restoration projects, completed,

ongoing and planned. The passage of H.R. 1775 would allow continuance and expansion of these efforts to better meet the Nation’s estuary habitat restoration needs.

•The Massachusetts Bays Program led an interagency approach to shellfish bed

restoration that will restore and protect 13 shellfish beds along Massachusetts

and Cape Cod Bays. As part of this effort, the program has linked up with business interests to promote innovative technologies for pollution prevention and

remediation. The program has also supported a comprehensive inventory of

tidally restricted coastal wetlands in Massachusetts and is funding two fish passageway projects.

•Through the work of the Barnegat Bay NEP, more than 32,000 acres of critical

coastal habitat area have been preserved in Barnegat Bay, New Jersey.

• Over 40,000 acres of impounded marsh and mangrove wetlands have been reconnected to the Indian River Lagoon on Florida’s eastern coast, one of the most

U.S. productive ecosystems in an area with high population growth and human

pressures. On the Gulf Coast, the Sarasota NEP has helped achieve a 28-318

percent reduction in nitrogen loadings to the Bay, spurring a seven percent increase in the growth of seagrass beds.

• Maine’s Casco Bay Estuary Program teamed up with local lobstermen to study

habitat in Portland Harbor (discovering that the harbor supported a thriving

lobster community, larger than anyone had thought) and then to relocate thousands of harbor lobsters to other areas while the harbor was dredged thereby

protecting an important natural resource while supporting the increased economic development that the dredging allowed.

•The New York/New Jersey Harbor NEP, through its Habitat Workgroup, has

prioritized and produced GIS coverages of habitat sites targeted for restoration

and acquisition by the two states. This process has already resulted in the fundVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:18 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\63806 pfrm07 PsN: 63806
66

ing several millions of dollars worth of restoration projects. The data is being

used to identify not just potential sites, but also other factors that can impair

restoration such as erosion problems and incompatible land uses. A range of

projects target saltmarshes, freshwater wetlands, stream corridors, waterfowl

foraging areas, fish runs, invasive plant removal, dredge material reuse, artificial reefs, coastal grasslands, oyster and shellfish beds and upland forest.

•Leading a partnership effort the Charlotte Harbor NEP has restored over 700

acres on public lands through removal of non-native plant species such as

Melaleuca, Brazilian pepper, and Australian pine as well as the restoration of

natural hydrology. These plants were over-running and out-competing native

plants. Another priority is the restoration of heavily damaged seagrass beds

using innovative techniques to promote rapid re-growth.

• On November 6, 1998, the Seabrook Middle Ground clam flat in coastal New

Hampshire was reopened to clamming for the first time in nearly 10 years due

to work coordinated by the New Hampshire NEP. The reopening points to

marked water quality improvements in the Harbor largely due to increased municipal sewerage coverage in the Town of Seabrook and other smaller scale pollution control measures around the Harbor.

•The Barataria-Terrebone Estuary Program has led a local planning effort to

restore oyster-growing areas to safe harvest conditions. The program sponsored

local stakeholder meetings which idenfified 61 candidate restoration sites and

a smaller set of priority sites were selected for immediate action.

•The Narragansett Bay Estuary Program has been the state point-of-contact for

a multi-million dollar Army Corps of Engineers Ecological Restoration Initiative. The NBEP organized a stakeholder group to work with the Corps to develop a list of priority coastal wetland and anadromous fish run restoration

sites. The NBEP persuaded the Corps to also provide basic engineering studies

for a number of the identified sites. The program has two saltmarsh restoration

projects in this year’s workplan and recently secured over $200,000 from the

R.I.’s Oil Spill and Response Fund to support coastal habitat mapping and restoration equipment purchases.

•The Tampa Bay NEP set an initial goal of restoring 100 acres of low-salinity

wetland habitat—this goal has already been met through the combined efforts

of local, state and Federal programs, and non-profits groups such as Tampa

Baywatch. The program has set an overall seagrass restoration goal of 12,000

acres. The San Francisco Estuary Project’s top priority is to expand, restore and

protect wetlands. Working with state, Federal and local agencies, as well as private organizations, this NEP developed the Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals

Report—a scientific guide for restoring and improving the baylands and adjacent habitats of the San Francisco estuary.

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Ribb, thank you very much. Since there are so few people

in the room, I don’t think we need the lights. We appreciate the technology and

under certain circumstances, if the dais up here was filled, I guess we would need

them, but since it’s just Eni and myself, we’ll forego the lights.

Mr. Ribb, thank you very much.

Mr. Hirshfield.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL HIRSHFIELD, SENIOR VICE

PRESIDENT, CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION

Mr. HIRSHFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to nevertheless be brief.

On behalf of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Restore America’s Estuaries, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present testimony in strong support of H.R. 1775, the

Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act. I would especially

like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for introducing this bill.

My name is Mike Hirshfield. I’m the Senior Vice President of the

Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which has its headquarters in Annapolis, Maryland and offices in Virginia and Pennsylvania. CBF is a

member-supported, non-profit environmental education and advocacy organization, with over 80,000 members throughout the bay

watershed and nationwide.

Our mission is to save the bay, period; to restore and protect the

Chesapeake Bay and its watershed.

I’m also here as a member of the Board of Restore America’s Estuaries, which is a coalition of 11 regional environmental organizations that all have estuary protection and restoration at the core

of their missions.

We’ve heard a lot about the legislation and what I’d like to do

is depart from my written remarks for a couple of minutes, ask

that they be included in the record, and—— Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection.

Mr. HIRSHFIELD.[continuing] talk about a couple of the things

that I’ve heard this morning.

You asked how one restores an estuary, and I would say that our

perhaps overly simplistic perspective is that you stop pollution, you

manage your fisheries sustainably, and you protect and restore

habitat, and those three elements have been what has been recognized by the Chesapeake Bay Program as critical to bringing back

the health of the Chesapeake Bay, and, as you’ve heard, there are

critical elements in all of the national estuary program efforts to

restore estuaries.

If you look, however, at the history of a lot of these programs,

(I’ve been involved with the Chesapeake Bay Program for over 20

years now, from the beginning, first as a researcher, then as a

state employee, and now with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation),

the focus really historically was on stopping pollution. That was

the first thing that people started to work on and for a long time,

the vast majority of the resources going to restoring our bays has

been focused on stopping pollution.

In the last few years, we’ve got our arms around fisheries management a little bit better, in part because of the legislation that

you worked so hard on to get the states working better together,

and really restoring habitat I see as the eye-opening moment for

the next 10 years or so.

118

We’ve seen the need. We realize that just stopping pollution and

just managing fisheries isn’t enough. We’ve actually got to fix

things. We’ve got to put things back. We’ve got to unstraighten rivers. We’ve got to put oyster reefs back into three dimensions. And

in order to do that, we need resources and coordination beyond

what we’ve had to date.

We are very supportive of the Bay Program. I testified in favor

of its reauthorization on the Senate side a couple of months ago.

We see this legislation as being in no way duplicative, but as being

complimentary, providing resources and coordination that will really help to take the bay and all the other bays in the country to the

next level.

I’m sure if any of my colleagues from RAE were here, they would

say the same thing.

A year ago, we issued the first Chesapeake Bay Foundation report card, State of the Bay. We gave the bay a 27 out of 100. People

said we’re tough graders, but we think that that’s really where the

bay is compared to what it has been. In fact, we said it had come

back a little bit, maybe up from a 22, from when it bottomed out

in the early ’80s.

This year, a couple of weeks ago, we released the 1999 State of

the Bay report and we gave the bay a 28; not exactly a huge improvement, but we’re still pretty tough graders and we look at a

lot of factors, and having a bay get better at all in the face of all

the threats that are facing it we think is pretty remarkable.

And one of the things that we’re the most excited about is the

potential for oyster restoration. A bunch of scientists got together,

as Ms. Yozell talked about, a few months ago, and came up with

a consensus document, that is pretty rare. If you think three agencies getting together and agreeing on something is tough, getting

20 scientists together to agree on anything is almost unheard of.

And they agreed that what we needed were oyster sanctuaries,

set-aside for brood stock, three-dimensional reefs, and more attention to how we manage the oyster fishery. We think that with that

kind of a framework, with the funding and coordination provided

by the legislation that we’re talking about here, we’ll be able to

take oysters back from the two that we gave them this year to a

10 or a 20 in the next decade, and we think the Chesapeake Bay,

from its 28, will be able to be taken back to a 70 or so.

We’re not going to get to that 100, we’re not that naive, but we

think a 70 is possible. And, again, this is a perspective that I know

is shared by all of the other members of Restore America’s Estuaries; that if we can get in there, get our hands dirty and start fixing the pieces of the bays that are broken, we can bring it back.

One last comment. We’ve heard a lot about the importance of

technical expertise in this program and we at the Bay Foundation

certainly think that doing it right is better than doing it too quickly. However, there is an extraordinary energy all over this country

related to habitat restoration. We have hundreds of our members

who are growing oysters on their docks and taking them—not eating them, but taking them and putting them back on oyster reefs.

There are similar stories that could be told all over this country

of citizens taking their time and their money and putting it into

estuarine habitat restoration. And we hope that as we set up the

119

process for implementing this legislation, that an appropriate role

for private citizen organizations, such as CBF and the other RAE

members, would be taken into account, because it would be tragic

if we lost that enthusiasm and that energy.

In summary, on behalf of all the RAE members, I want to applaud you and the members of this Committee for the vision and

leadership on this critical issue. We look forward to working with

you to move this legislation forward and to turn a very good bill

into very good law.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hirshfield may be found at the

end of the hearing.]

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mr. Hirshfield. We share

your enthusiasm. Now, Ms. Woolsey’s former staffer, who I’m sure

she misses a great deal at this point, but glad you’re in the place

where you are, Mr. Davis.

STATEMENT OF GRANT DAVIS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, U.S.

ARMY

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I’m still blushing

from her introduction. A little bit embarrassing. But I truly appreciate the opportunity to be here before you today and appreciate

your introduction of this piece of legislation, as well as Mr.

Faleomavaega, the Ranking Member, sitting through the testimony. It really is quite inspiring to see the panel before us speak

in relative unanimity, three different Federal agencies talking

about implementation of legislation like this, because you have hit

upon something, I think, that is a recipe for success.

As the Congresswoman mentioned, I have been the Executive Director of the Bay Institute of San Francisco for a little over two

years. Our sole mission is the protection and restoration of the San

Francisco Bay Delta Estuary and I submitted a document that we

released last year for members of the Committee called The Sierra

to the Sea, which is essentially the area that we cover.

In that, the second to last page, is an historical compilation of

the San Francisco Bay delta, 150 years ago, which documents what

we used to have and what we now have today, which puts a dramatic picture in front of us of what we’ve lost and how we have

to re-double our efforts, in particular, in the San Francisco Bay

delta.

And I don’t claim to be an expert on any other estuary, but I do

know one of the sad common features is that all estuaries in the

nation are, in fact, being abused and are in need of repair.

The bright spot, however, is the fact that you have colleagues

that are before you today, non-profit, non-government organizations, as well as local, state and Federal agencies, that are willing

to re-double efforts to get engaged and do implementation.

One of the beauties of going last is that I will say I’ll be brief

and that I’d like to obviously include my full remarks into the

record, but would like to paraphrase that I’ve heard today and comment and give some feedback based on members’ questions and the

responses that I heard earlier.

With all due respect, the first one is your analogy of a funnel.

It’s a very good one. However, the idea of transmission fluid for an

120

estuary is probably one—I would recomend using another analogy,

like fresh water, because the one area that—— Mr. GILCHREST. The reason I use that, though, is when I communicate my ideas to other members of Congress, that seems to take

hold. But I’ll take your ideas into consideration.

Mr. DAVIS. The funnel works. It’s just what you put down it. I

used that because my colleague to the right here did mention there

is a fourth element besides the wonderful features you talked

about, restoring estuaries. In our case in California, clearly fresh

water flows are an equally important ingredient to restoring our

estuaries and when you look at a dry state like ours, which is in

need of water, our continuing challenge is making sure we have

enough fresh water flows into the system.

So in order to restore the physical process, which is what our

document suggests is needed, you need fresh water flow and that

would be the summation in terms of what we find at the Bay Institute is our biggest challenge; that is, working with, in a collaborative way, the Federal agencies, the state and local bodies, working toward a very comprehensive vision of restoration.

My message today is that in San Francisco, we’re ready to implement. A great deal of work has been done to plan and we’re fortunate enough in our region that there is a great deal of collaboration

going on with the Federal, state and local entities that are responsible for regulation and designing and ultimately implementing

projects.

I didn’t include this, because it’s too big for the record, but there

is a document called The Bay-lands Ecosystem Habitat Goals,

which thoroughly documents—this has been a five-year effort of all

the best scientists that we have in our institutions, documenting

project by project very ambitious goals for restoration of the entire

watershed.

I’d like to make sure that I get both Committee staff and the

members get this document, because it’s basically a template for

how to implement the work that your bill is suggesting needs to

be done in estuaries all across the U.S.

One other document——

Mr. GILCHREST. What is the title of that?

Mr. DAVIS. This document is called The Bay-lands Ecosystem

Habitat Goals, it’s a report of the habitat recommendations prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals

Project, very informative and years of work went into this.

Closer to home, we did have a document called San Pablo Bay

Lands. This is the northern part of San Francisco Bay, where we’re

located and very involved. This is a plan to protect and restore the

region’s farms and wetlands, because in our region, we have the

nexus of agriculture and the estuary and truly significant work

needs to be done in collaboration. We need landowner support and

voluntary cooperative means for the agencies to work with the

NGOs and the landowners to ultimately implement restoration.

So that document I did insert for the record, because it, too, provides numerous opportunities, with the right funding mechanism,

for us to implement and begin restoring upwards, in this area, of

around 50,000 acres of wetlands in the San Francisco Bay, which

would be a phenomenal step.

121

Lastly, just to move forward, Mike Davis, who testified earlier,

because your legislation provides the Corps with the primary responsibility for ecosystem restoration here, we support that actually. It’s been our experience that that new mission that they’re

moving into, contrary to what their old mission was, is one in

which they are equipped to work.

I have submitted a document called the San Pablo Bay Watershed Restoration Study. It’s a currently authorized project that the

Congress has had now for three years, going into its fourth year,

and we are fortunate to be able to work with them in designing the

restoration strategy.

That means they have found a way, and I suggest that this could

be your model for other estuaries and partnerships around the nation, where the Corps has the authorization for ecosystem restoration, but what’s unique with the San Pablo Bay Area is they’re providing what they do best; that is, technical assistance and implementation planning to state and local and non-government agencies and organizations working to implement projects.

So if you have the scientific advisory panels put in place that

would encompass groups like ours and the local, state and other

agencies responsible for regulation, working with the Federal agencies under the Corps’ leadership, I think you do have a model that

can work. And what we heard today is that NOAA and EPA and

U.S. Fish and Wildlife are prepared to operate under that rubric.

So I think the theme today is collaboration, it’s a major step forward, were you to be able to pass this out in a bipartisan manner.

It’s something that the Bay Institute, as well as the San Francisco

Bay Joint Venture, which I currently am Vice Chair, wholeheartedly support, and if there is any work that we can do to help

assist in moving this bill forward, one of the ways to do that would

be to get additional co-sponsors and I plan to go back and do just

that, to get the Bay area Congressional delegation to come on this

bill and hopefully this will be the vehicle that we use this year.

So thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:]

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Could each of you comment on the structure, the regional structure we’ve created in this

legislation, whether you think you can tap into that structure?

Also, if you could comment on the question that was posed to the

Corps, Fish and Wildlife, and NMFS about grants versus projects

and how that is oriented. They seem to think that there could be

some formula or some measure for grant projects as opposed to just

having everything done through the Corps, through a project-oriented.

I’m just wondering where do each of you think you might fit into

that scheme. Mr. Ribb?

I also want to thank—unless you really like to fly, I want to

thank Mr. Ribb and Mr. Davis. I don’t think Mike flew from Annapolis.

Mr. HIRSHFIELD. Although I wish I had. It would have been

quicker.

Mr. GILCHREST. It was a little stormy last Thursday. But I really

want to thank both of you for coming back this week. It’s very appreciated.

Mr. RIBB. Well, I got to see the storm firsthand, so that was really interesting. I think the regional council concept is important.

Our experience in our watershed is we have worked in collaboration with the Army Corps on a number of initiatives—in fact, we

have a couple of investigations going on where our estuary program

is the point program of contact for them, and, through us, the

Corps has been able to work with all of our local stakeholders.

So I think a process that includes a diversity of interests work

best having, experienced this on our watershed level. Diversity in

the regional councils is important; to have the various governmental agencies, but to also have the other groups, like representation from RAE, which certainly is critical.

I think it also builds broader support. And if the local people are

involved it gets back to the question you asked, how do you restore

and estuary and keep it that way. I think one of the critical ways

is to have the public support for it and to build the kind of political

will to do those things.

In our state, we’ve been to bat three times on a state estuary

habitat restoration bill that would use oil spill proceeds as a funding source and each time it was defeated for purely political reasons. Strong support, but not quite enough articulated at the citizen level to say to state legislators, hey, we want this to happen.

So we’re working very hard to try and get that to happen, but

I think, as I said, if people feel connected to the Council, the people

in the neighborhood down the street from you who want to restore

their salt marsh, you’re likely to have a connection to the Council

that’s very powerful.

So I believe that’s a critical component to the success of the

Council. And I’ve forgotten the second question.

Mr. GILCHREST. Projects v. grants.

Mr. RIBB.I think the grant process, in my mind, would be better,

because we have a lot of capacity right now at our regional and

local level to do this kind of work. We have people who want to be

involved in it.

129

We have universities, we have state agencies, we have citizen

groups who want to be involved and have some expertise. We think

that’s a real good way to go at it.

Admittedly, I know a grant process, administratively, is more

work, having spent a lot of time on administration myself, but I do

believe that when people have the ability to do work themselves,

in collaboration with the Federal, state and local groups, again, it’s

very powerful and it’s long-lasting.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. Mike?

Mr. HIRSHFIELD. I think the regional council mechanism is the

way to go. I think that I’d have to go back and look at the language

and see how prescriptive it is about participation of groups like

ours, but whether it’s prescriptive or not, as long as everybody understands that we have a real stake in this and real interest in it

and that we should have a seat at the table at the beginning, I

think our folks would be satisfied.

On grants or projects, I think Grant Davis really hit it right. It’s

figuring out—it’s less about whether you call it a project or a grant

than it is about figuring out the appropriate roles and responsibilities for all the participants.

If we’re going to be moving a culvert, I’m really not sure that

we’d need a really long Corps analysis. If we’re going to be moving

an island, I’d probably want a little bit longer planning process.

But just as in San Francisco Bay, a lot of work has gone into developing the plans, finding the sites, figuring out what the projects

are, in many cases, with the collaboration of folks like the Corps,

I’m not sure that going through what I seem to hear as being a

checklist of a project approach is necessarily the way to go.

We are using an old analogy from the movie MASH, where they

talked about doing not hospital surgery, but doing meatball surgery. We’re talking about meatball restoration. We don’t have time

to satisfy the purists and academia or perhaps the engineers who

are counting everything. We need to get out there and get the job

done.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. Grant?

Mr. DAVIS. Briefly, never to pass up a moment. It might be the

last time I get to testify here, and it is getting late.

But again, there are two projects I wanted to call attention to in

part of that. With all due respect to Mr. Davis with the Corps, his

one item that I totally agree with is in his earlier testimony on this

bill, he talked about another purpose for this legislation, which essentially was greater public appreciation and awareness for the

value of the benefits of estuaries and our coastal resources.

Adding that as one of the purposes gets to the point of gaining

public awareness and appreciation, and part of that then is who is

engaged in the implementation.

So going back to our region, you mentioned the Sonoma Bay

Lands project. That was a huge wetlands restoration, 400 acres,

and it encompassed the reuse of dredge material, a beneficial reuse

of material that came from the Port of Oakland that would have

gone into the Bay or into the ocean. We reused it for wetland restoration. That’s the model that I would like to point to.

More importantly, you have a component in here for monitoring

and we’re learning from the Sonoma Bay Lands project, just down

130

the way in Novato, California, at the Hamilton Army Air Field, and

this is in my testimony. It’s a 700-acre wetland restoration, again,

but what’s unique is it’s a cement runway that’s four feet below sea

level, and what we’re going to do is take the valuable material

that’s coming out of the dredge projects, put them into beneficial

reuse at that site. We’ll take what we learned from the Sonoma

Bay Lands.

So what you’ve managed to do here is put the Corps into the

proper place. They can move material and they can design projects

and they can have the technical resources, but they require a local

partner, a local cost-share, and a local vibrant community interest

to help implement, and that’s the power of this.

What we’re hoping to do there is with NOAA, you’ll have a bank

where you will learn, we’ll be able to tap into NOAA’s database for

restoration and, quite frankly, that’s the missing ingredient here.

When I recommend who should go and how, it depends on the

project.

You can’t just provide the authority to the Corps to give the opportunity to grant. If it’s a grant-making project, I would concur

with my colleague here that it makes sense for smaller projects to

go to an NGO or a state or a local entity. For big projects, let’s use

the Corps, and contain it so it doesn’t get out of hand.

The cost-share is what you’ve given here. In a nutshell, we’d be

happy to work with them on implementing projects.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis. I yield now to

the gentleman from American Samoa.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to

thank the three panelists for their excellent statements that have

been presented before the Committee.

Just a couple of questions, for the record, if I may. And I do appreciate the gentlemen’s support and their endorsement of the proposed bill.

Mr. Ribb, as you are aware, there are currently 28 national estuary programs administered by the EPA and one of the things that

has really made the program so outstanding, as all of you have indicated earlier, the involvement of the local communities.

Can you share with us any more elaboration on how this works

within your Narragansett national estuary?

Mr. RIBB. In particular, as an example, and it’s included in my

written testimony, our program has worked closely with local interests—we pulled together the habitat restoration stakeholders from

across that whole spectrum, university, agency, local, citizen

groups, last fall, and we held a symposium on coastal habitat restoration. Out of that we came up with policy directions, research

needs, and legislation that’s needed.

We have a consistent team that meets on a regular basis and

right now we’ve put together a GIS map of all of the sites, habitat

restoration sites planned, proposed and completed, and we have

this to work from.

Now we’re working on a prioritization scheme that is right for

our estuary. We’ve also been doing the science behind it by analyzing what’s been lost, where is our best bang for the buck, but

also building in what Mr. Hirshfield is saying, recognition of a willVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:00 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\63806 pfrm07 PsN: 63806
131

ingness to act. We need to recognize that and we need to take advantage of those people, programs and projects.

So at the same time that we’re building the science and the consensus, we want to get out there and act and do projects, and we’re

doing that now on a limited level. This bill would really help meet

those local needs.

In respect to the issue of the grants versus projects, we have

been working closely with the Army Corps right now on a restoration planning, and they have also been involved in some of the

smaller projects and I think that it’s hard for them. They’re not

geared up for small projects, at least the way we work. So I think

that they need to have that connection, as Grant said, but ned to

determine the proper role of how they can work together with local

intersts for these smaller projects. That’s a critical component of

their involvement.

I think that we’ve built a support system that is ready to work

with this process, if this bill becomes law. We have prioritized the

list of projects, we have the players, we have people ready to go,

we have local funding sources, and that is not an unusual situation

for the NEPs. That is a model that all NEPs use.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. This is just testing the mettle of the proposed provisions of my good friend’s bill here. As you all know,

we’ve got the regional councils, but my question is that we’ve got

28 programs that are very successful. It seems that the key here

is involvement of the local communities. I was wondering, do you

think that putting the regions, like Florida, Alabama, Mississippi,

Louisiana, Texas together, do you think that they have a commonality of their needs, where we put them together, or does this

add another layer of more bureaucratic involvement in establishing

a council or regional councils?

Mr. RIBB. I think the needs are common across those estuaries,

although some are different because of their ecological situation.

The difference between Louisiana and Portland, Maine, for example. But recently things, the Estuary Programs did a report on

common problems across the country of different estuaries and

there were six or seven priority ones that come up in every estuary,

issues like habitat loss, water quality degradation, and invasive

species, nutrient overloading.

So the programs, estuaries share these problems. I’m not so sure

that its a big a problem, having a regional setup as ther bill describes.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And, Mr. Hirshfield, I notice that you got

your doctorate from the University of Michigan. Do you think I

might have any problem with the Great Lakes connotation that

we’re trying to take on here?

Mr. HIRSHFIELD. Well, it’s funny, we were talking about the

Great Lakes a little bit earlier and, as a scientist, I do have a little

bit of a definitional problem with including places that have no salt

in their water in a program that is fundamentally about where the

salt water meets the fresh water.

But that’s perhaps, in this context, a picky scientific distinction

of no real importance.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I wanted just to——

132

Mr. HIRSHFIELD. I appreciate it. I was raised near the coast and

as fast as I could leave Michigan, I got back first to California, then

back here to the east.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. How important do you think, Mr. Hirshfield,

is the idea of monitoring the process? Maybe I’m kind of asking a

leading question, but sometimes we tend to forget.

Mr. HIRSHFIELD. We are very happy to see the monitoring provisions in this legislation.

Although I was just the person who said maybe we should perhaps even cut a few corners and get out there doing restoration

projects, that’s, in part, reflective of my belief that the best way

that scientists learn about this new discipline is by doing it.

And if you’re not going to have good monitoring of the projects,

then you’re not going to be learning. We’ve all seen, over the years,

lots of projects go back. The straightened rivers were, after all, designed for some, at that time, believed public good.

So having a monitoring program that really does keep an eye on

what’s happening, and to make sure that the benefits that we’re all

looking for are actually achieved I think is essential.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. We’ve got a $280 billion military budget

that we now have pending and we’re only proposing $220 million

for a five-year period to provide for the needs of 50 percent of our

nation’s population residing in the coastal areas and the 70 percent

or whatever of the commercial fisheries, 90 percent of the recreational fisheries.

Maybe this is something, Mr. Chairman, that I would suggest that we ought to look at the investment, because $220 million for

a five-year period is pittance. Probably not even the cost of one B1 bomber. But to look at the difference of what this means in

human needs and also our appreciation for the environment is just

unbelievable.

I want to ask Mr. Davis. You know, every time I go through San

Francisco, I—and, by the way, we really appreciate your coming

here twice now for the course of the span of one week. I know what

it means to be on a five- hour flight between the west coast and

here.

But every time I come through San Francisco, I see this huge

dirty area that is just absolutely muddy or whatever, clay, or whatever, and it looks like no organism lives or survives in this. It’s

about five miles away from the San Francisco Airport.

Am I making any inroads into what an estuary is or shouldn’t

be?

Mr. DAVIS. You are making the most relevant point. It’s where

the waters mix, and that’s why I brought up fresh water flow. We

have the Sacramento River and the San Joaquin that form the

main tributaries that flow through the delta, out the bay, and you

have the mixing zone, a nutrient zone where the animal life and

the food web is really, really rich.

So when you destroy that, the physical process, all of the the species that rely on that are threatened.

My colleague here, Mr. Ribb, mentioned something about the real

challenge being sedimentation and some of the non-point source

pollutions and in my written testimony I talk about two other

areas that we ought to look at this vehicle possibly being relevant.

133

One of them is to help the collaborations of the municipalities

that are responsible for keeping the non-point source pollution, this

is human, that are contributing toward that, the folks that live in

and around these estuaries, we’re all part of the problem and all

part of the solution.

So addressing non-point source pollution through this vehicle

may, in fact, be one other benefit that I see out of this.

In addition, there is a great deal of work going on right now

through the CalFed process and work that the Bay Institute is

doing on industrial water use efficiency. I bring this up because it’s

important to note that you can combine economic incentives from

municipalities and state and local government to provide more efficient use of our resources, and that would be reducing the discharge into our estuaries, that’s the sewage and the municipal load

that’s added into our estuaries, and combine that with an incentive

for water conservation, and we’re showing some dramatic numbers,

where the Congress could provide just an additional incentive to

local governments that are responsible for heavy loads and reducing the discharge.

This could be a vehicle, and I felt compelled to raise it because

it’s exciting pioneering work and, as Mr. Hirshfield said, this is an

ongoing process.

It’s scientific in nature. It means it’s evolving and we have to

practice adaptive management. We need to learn as we restore,

and that’s why that data bank is so darn important, because that

would be our resource to evolve our understanding of how best to

restore our nation’s estuaries.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Gentlemen, I thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, again, I want to commend you for proposing a bill that I feel

so comfortable and very confident that it will shortly have very

strong bipartisan support. I want to commend you for this. And,

gentlemen, thank you again for coming.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega, for your support

and for your questions.

Gentlemen, once again, thank you for your testimony. It has

been extremely helpful for us to formulate this piece of legislation

and it is our hope, and I think you’ve done a great deal to help in

that effort, to get it passed out of the House before we recess or

adjourn, and passed out of the Senate.

So we’ll be working to that end. If there is any other member

that you think you need to call in the country to encourage them

to co-sponsor or vote for this, we would appreciate it.

Thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:06 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218